Telangana High Court
Kaleru Suresh, R.R.Dt., vs State Of Ap., Rep. Pp. Hyd., on 21 January, 2022
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9645 of 2013
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Crime No.334 of 2013 on the file of Ghatkesar Police Station, Cyberabad, registered against him for the offences under Sections 171-E, 171-F, 188 IPC and Section 211 read with 228 of Panchayatraj Act and Section 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that the Sub- Inspector of Police of Ghatkesar Police Station, on receipt of credible information that during the Panchayat elections in Edulabad Village, the petitioner who was contesting the office of Sarpanch of Grampanchayat, Edulabad, stored liquor in his house illegally to influence the voters, raided H.No.2-46 in Edulabad village on 20.07.2013 at 8.15 PM and found (1) MC Quarter bottles of 4 cartons each containing 48 bottles, (2) O.C. full bottles of one carton containing 12 bottles and (3) O.C. half bottles of half carton containing 24 bottles and seized the same under the cover of panchanama and lodged the report. Basing on the said report, the above crime was registered for the above offences.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had not committed any offence. The petitioner contested in the panchayat elections held in the village for the office of Sarpanch.
Dr.GRR,J 2 Crl.P.No.9645 of 2013 He was not in possession of any liquor to distribute to the voters to get their franchise. According to the police, the liquor was found in front of the house of the petitioner. Assuming without admission that the petitioner was in possession of the liquor, the liquor bottles were seized by the police and the said liquor bottles were duty paid. The family of the petitioner consisting of about 6 members and each member was entitled to possess 6 full bottles. Therefore, the possession of liquor bottles would not constitute an offence under Section 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act. The police under the influence of rival contestants instituted the case against the petitioner. The allegations made in the FIR even if they were taken on their face value and accepted in entirety, did not make out any offence alleged against the petitioner and prayed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.334 of 2013 on the file of Ghatkesar Police Station.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.
6. Perused the record. The offences alleged against the petitioner-accused are under Sections 171-E and F, 188 IPC, Section 211 read with 228 of Panchayat Raj Act and Section 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act.
7. The offence under Section 171-E and F IPC comes under Chapter IX-A pertaining to the offences relating to elections. 171-E IPC is punishment for bribery and it reads as follows:
"171-E. Punishment for bribery:-Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only.
Dr.GRR,J 3 Crl.P.No.9645 of 2013 Explanation.--"Treating" means that form of bribery where the gratification consists in food, drink, entertainment, or provision."
8. Section 171-F is punishment for undue influence or personation at an election and it reads as under:
"171-F. Punishment for undue influence or personation at an election.--Whoever commits the offence of undue influence or personation at an election shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both."
9. These offences had no application in this case as no voter has given any complaint that he was offered with food, drink, money etc., as bribery or to influence him to vote for the petitioner. The allegation in the FIR was that the petitioner was found in possession of the said liquor bottles to induce the voters in the elections. But, no such offence was committed by the petitioner at that stage.
10. Section 188 IPC is pertaining to disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant. It reads as under:
"188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.--Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Explanation.--It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is Dr.GRR,J 4 Crl.P.No.9645 of 2013 sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm. Illustration An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section."
But, the FIR would not disclose what orders were promulgated by the public servant and what were disobeyed by the petitioner.
11. Section 211 of the Panchayat Raj Act is pertaining to election offences and explains what would be corrupt practice in the elections.
Section 228 of the Panchayat Raj Act reads as under:
"228. Penalty for offences not otherwise provided for:-
Whoever does any act in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act, or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed, thereunder and not otherwise provided for in this Act shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees."
12. The FIR prima facie would not disclose attracting the above offences under Panchayat Raj Act also.
Section 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act reads as follows:
34. Penalties for illegal import etc. - Whoever, in contravention of this Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any licence or permit granted or issued under this Act,-
(a) imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant;
13. The allegation against the petitioner was that he was in possession of intoxicants exceeding the permissible limit. The contention of the petitioner was that the intoxicants seized were duty paid liquor and his family members were consisting of '6' persons and Dr.GRR,J 5 Crl.P.No.9645 of 2013 they were entitled to possess '6' full bottles each. But considering that a large quantity of intoxicants were seized as per the FIR, four cartons of MC quarter bottles (48 in number), one carton of OC full bottles (12 in number) and half quarter OC bottles (24 in number) which were more than permissible limit and the petitioner had to prove with necessary evidence before the Court as to the number of adults in his family, he is permitted to file a discharge petition before the court below if advised.
14. Considering that this court would only look into whether the allegations in the FIR would prima facie attract the offence alleged, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is considered fit to quash the proceedings against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 171-E, 171-F, 188 IPC and Section 211 read with 228 of Panchayatraj Act and to dismiss the petition for the offence under Section 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act.
15. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing the proceedings in Crime No.334 of 2013 on the file of Ghatkesar Police Station, Cyberabad for the offences under Sections 171-E, 171-F, 188 IPC and Section 211 read with 228 of Panchayatraj Act and the petition is dismissed for the offence under Section 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J January 21, 2022 KTL