LexSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus BAJJOORI KANTHAIAH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008) 14 S.C.R. 841 -r-'I STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH A v. BAJJOORI KANTHAIAH AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1637 of 2008) OCTOBER 20, 2008 B ~~ [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Inherent powers of High Court Exercise of - Parameters laid down - c Discussed - On facts, FIR alleging offence of manufacturing illicit liquor - Quashing of, by High Court finding that there was no material to show that seized articles were intended to be used for commission of offence - Held: Not justified - It cannot be said that FIR did not disclose commission of offence D - There was either statements of witnesses or seizure of black --r jaggery and alum materials being used for manufacturing illicit distilled liquor which cannot be said to be without relevance - Acceptability of the materials to fasten culpability on accused is a matter of trial - Thus, order of High Court set aside. E The Prohibition and Excise officers registered an FIR against the accused alleging that he was either transport- ing or storing black jaggery/molasses for manufacturing illicit distilled liquor or was abetting the offence of manu- -( facturing illicit liquor, punishable under Andhra Pradesh F Excise Act, 1968 and Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. Accused filed application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for quash- ing the FIR. High Court held that there was no material to show that the seized articles were intended to be used " for manufacturing of illicit distilled liquor and quashed the G > FIR. Hence the present appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 In all these cases there was either state- 841 H 842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. j..,- A ments of witnesses or seizure of black jaggery and olum materials being used for manufacturing illicit distilled Ii- quor which factors cannot be said to be without relevance. Whether the material already in existence or to be col- lected during investigation would be sufficient for hold- B ing the concerned accused persons guilty has to be con- sidered at the time of trial. At the time of framing the charge -~ ,...... it can be decided whether prima facie case has been made out showing commission of an offence and involve- ment of the charged persons. At that stage also evidence cannot be gone into meticulously. It is immaterial whether ,_ c the case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence. Charge can be framed, if there are materials showing pos- sibility about the commission of the crime as against cer- I tainty. That being so, the interference at the threshold with ~ ,, D the F.l.R. is to be in very exceptional circumstances. [Para 9] [850-A-D] f- 1.2 The acceptability of the materials to fasten culpa- '-r- bility on the accused persons is a matter of trial. These are not the cases where it can be said that the FIR did not E disclose commission of an offence. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR. Keeping in view the principles of law as enunciated herein, the ac- tion of the High Court in quashing the FIR in each case cannot be maintained and are set aside. [Paras 10 and F 11] [850-E-F] ~ R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; The Janata Dal etc. v. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors. etc. AIR 1993 SC 892; Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar and Anr. AIR 1964 SC 1; G Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 494; State of Bihar and Anr. v. P P. Sharma, I.A. S. & Anr. ~ .. 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 222; Rupan Deal Bajaj (Mrs.) & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Anr. 1995 (6) SCC 194; State of Kera/a and Ors. v. 0. C. Kuttan and Ors. 1999 (2) SCC 651; \. H State of U. P. v 0. P Sharma 1996 (7) SCC 705; Rashmi STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. BAJJOORI 843 KANTHAIAH & ANR. ---k' Kumar (Smt.) v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada 1997 (2) SCC 397; A Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. 1999 (8) SCC 728; Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors. AIR 1999 SC 1216; State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and Anr. 2002 (3) sec 89 - relied on. CASE LAW REFERENCE B AIR 1960 SC 866 Relied on. Para 6 .+-. rJ 1992 Supp (1) sec 335 Relied on. Para 6 AIR 1993 SC 892 Relied on. Para 8 c AIR 1964 SC 1 Relied on. Para 8 AIR 1990 SC 494 Relied on. Para 8 1992 Suppl (1) sec 222 Relied on. Para 8 1995 (6) sec 194 Relied on. Para 8 D 1999 (2) sec 651 Relied on. Par
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.