STATE OF A.P. versus GOURISHETIY MAHESH & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 8 S.C.R. 423 · Decided: 15-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 8 S.C.R. 423 
STATE OF A.P. 
v. 
GOURISHETIY MAHESH & ORS. 
(Criminal appeal no.1252 of 2010) 
JULY 15, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
A 
B 
s. 482 - Scope of - Black jaggery transported for alleged C 
preparation of illicit liquor- Seizure and confiscation - Upheld 
by Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise - Report of 
chemical examiner that the seized jaggery was "fit for 
fermentation, producing alcohol unfit for consumption" - Case 
registered against accused under ss.34(e), 41, 42 of the 
D 
Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 - Order of High Court 
quashing the proceedings against accused - Held: Not 
justified - Complaint prima facie disclosed commission of the 
offence and involvement of accused - Exercise of inherent 
power u/s.482 - Explained - Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 
E 
1968- ss.34(e), 41, 42. 
Prosecution case was that the accused-respondents 
were transporting 5040 Kgs. of black jaggery and alum 
illegally in a van. The van and the black jaggery were 
seized and a case was registered under Sections 34(e), 
F 
41, 42 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 against the 
accused-respondents. The government chemical 
examiner gave report that the sample of seized goods 
was jaggery "fit for fermentation producing alcohol unfit G 
for consumption". High Court allowed the petition for 
quashing the proceedings against respondents. 
Aggrieved, the State filed the appeal. 
423 
H 
424 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. While exercising jurisdiction under 
Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court would not ordinarily 
embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in 
B question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable 
appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. 
That is the function of the trial judge/court. It is true that 
courts should be circumspect and judicious in exercising 
discretion and should take all relevant facts and 
C circumstances into consideration before issuing process, 
otherwise, it would be an instrtJment in the hands of a 
private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any 
person needlessly. At the same time, Section 482 is not 
an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit 
D a prosecution and bring about its closure without full-
fledged enquiry. Though High Court may exercise its 
power relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse 
of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends 
of justice, the power should be exercised sparingly. The 
E powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 
are wide, however, such power requires care/caution in 
its exercise. The interference must be on sound principles 
and the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle 
a legitimate prosecution. If the allegations set out in the 
F complaint do not constitute the offence of which 
cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open 
to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of 
inherent powers under Section 482. [Para 12] [432-H; 433-
A-G] 
G 
1.2. In the case on hand, apart from specific 
allegations about the transportation of Jaggery for 
preparation of illicit distilled liquor, prosecution also 
placed reliance on laboratory analysis report which 
H mentioned that the transported Jaggery was 'fit for 
STATE OF A.P. v. GOURISHETTY MAHESH & ORS. 425 
fermentation producing alcohol unfit for consumption'. It A 
is also relevant that the Deputy Commissioner of 
Prohibition and Excise after finding that an offence under 
A.P. Excise Act, 1968 has been made out, seized the 
jaggery and confiscated it. The said order was confirmed 
by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. In the 
circumstances, whether the material in existence would 
B 
be sufficient for holding the· accused persons concerned 
guilty or not has to be considered only at the time of trial. 
Further, at the time of framing the charge, it can be 
decided whether prima facie case has been made out C 
showing the commission of offence and involvement of 
the charged persons. It is immaterial whether the case is 
based on direct or circumstantial evidence. That being so, 
the interference at the threshold quashing the FIR is to 
be exceptional and not like routine as ordered by the High 
D 
Court in the instant case. It is not a case where it can be 
said that the complaint did not disclose commission of 
an offence. The High Court was not justified in quashing 
t~e FIR. [Para 13

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.