E. Mallaiah Vs. the State of A.P., (Through Proh. and Excise Inspector, Sho), Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.

E. Mallaiah vs The State of A.P., (Through Proh. and Excise Inspector, Sho), Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Cour

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Feb 04, 2003

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/425783

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/425783
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: K.C. Bhanu, J.
Decided On: Feb 04, 2003
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 419 of 2003
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal - bailable offence - Rules 24 and 34 of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licence General Conditions) Rules, 1969, Sections 36 and 81 (1) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code - petition for anticipatory bail filed by petitioner suspected for adulteration of tod...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Andhra Pradesh Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licence General Conditions ) Rules 1969 - Rules 24 and 34; Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 - Sections 36 and 81(1); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) -...

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

E. Mallaiah

Advocate T. Amarnath Goud, Adv.

Respondent

The State of A.P., (Through Proh. and Excise Inspector, Sho), Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Cour

Advocate Public Prosecutor

Legal References

Acts: Andhra Pradesh Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licence General Conditions ) Rules 1969 - Rules 24 and 34; Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 - Sections 36 and 81(1); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 438
Reported In: 2003(1)ALD(Cri)726; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)366

Excerpt

.....can be statutory or contractual. is for the insurance company to show that the insurance policy was a statutory policy and not a contractual policy to restrict its liability. that issue was neither raised before the tribunal nor is raised in this appeal requiring decision. thus, if at all the insurer has any valid ground to restrict its liability, it can proceed against the insured but firstly it has to discharge the award as required under section 149 (1) of the act. where the owner/insured has failed to maintain the vehicle as per prescribed safety standards and has caused the claimant to drive the vehicle with mechanical defects, the owner would be the tortfeasor and the claimant can maintain a petition seeking compensation under the provisions of the act, instead of seeking compensation under the workmens compensation act. on facts, held, the material evidence on record, particularly, with regard to the income of the claimant, his age, medical evidence and the evidence relating to pecuniary loss has not been considered by the tribunal in the correct perspective, which has resulted in passing of the impugned award, disproportionate to the pecuniary loss and the loss of future income of the victim. the settled principles governing determination of compensation has been given a go-bye. compensation of rs.4,15,150/- awarded by the tribunal was enhanced to rs.8,20,000/-. .....or non-bailable, one has to look into the schedule of the code of criminal procedure. the learned public prosecutor did not deny or dispute the same. 5. as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the absence of classification of the offences under the a.p. excise act, viz., whether they are bailable or non-bailable, regard should be had to schedule ii of the code of criminal procedure, which provides for classification of offences against laws other than the indian penal code, in order to ascertain whether a particular offence under the a.p. excise act is bailable or non-bailable. as per that schedule, if an offence is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years, the offence is bailable. as i have already observed above, the charge levelled against the petitioner is under section 36 of the a.p. excise act and since the maximum imprisonment provided thereunder is less than two years, the offence is bailable. therefore, section 438 cr.p.c. has no application to the facts of the case, and hence the present petition for anticipatory bail is not maintainable, inasmuch as the offence alleged against the petitioner is bailable. 6. in the result, the petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

K.C. Bhanu, J.

1. It is the case of the prosecution that the Excise Police visited the licensed toddy shop of the petitioner. They suspected adulteration of toddy and therefore, they drew some samples and sent them to the concerned authority for analysis. The analyst after analysis gave opinion that the toddy sample contained Diazepam and therefore it was adulterated. The violations against the present petitioner are under Rules 24 and 34 of the A.P. Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licence General Conditions ) Rules 1969, and under Section 36 read with Section 81(1)(b) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

2. Rule 24 of the above said Rules deals with drawal of samples while Rule 34 deals with the power of Excise Officials to enter and inspect any shop and test arrack or toddy therein. There is no Section 81(1)(b) of the A.P. Excise Act. The Act contains only 73 Sections in all.

3. Section 36 of the Excise Act deals with penalty for misconduct of licensees etc. The charge levelled against the petitioner is under Section 36 of the A.P. Excise Act whereunder the maximum imprisonment does not exceed two years.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as there is no classification of offences under the A.P. Excise Act as to whether they are bailable or non-bailable, one has to look into the schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Public Prosecutor did not deny or dispute the same.

5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the absence of classification of the offences under the A.P. Excise Act, viz., whether they are bailable or non-bailable, regard should be had to Schedule II of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for classification of offences against Laws other than the Indian Penal Code, in order to ascertain whether a particular offence under the A.P. Excise Act is bailable or non-bailable. As per that Schedule, if an offence is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years, the offence is bailable. As I have already observed above, the charge levelled against the petitioner is under Section 36 of the A.P. Excise Act and since the maximum imprisonment provided thereunder is less than two years, the offence is bailable. Therefore, Section 438 Cr.P.C. has no application to the facts of the case, and hence the present petition for anticipatory bail is not maintainable, inasmuch as the offence alleged against the petitioner is bailable.

6. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 2003 Same Parties E. Mallaiah vs The State of A.P., (Through Proh. and Excise I... Same Subject Criminal Same Judge K.C. Bhanu, J. Acts & Sections Andhra Pradesh Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licence General Condi...

Criminal