Sri Vakacharla Narayana Rao Alias Gopi vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the selling of jaggery is not a prohibited activity and is legally permissible. It found it surprising that the police implicated a businessman merely for selling jaggery. The Court reasoned that the intent of the purchaser of jaggery cannot be attributed to the businessman selling it, and the purchase of jaggery in huge quantities, by itself, is not a ground for implicating a vendor as a co-accused under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. Since the petitioner was unaware of the purpose for which the jaggery was purchased and there was no evidence of any seizure from him, he could not be implicated as a co-accused. Consequently, the Court quashed Crime No. 242 of 2025.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Vakacharla Narayana Rao Alias Gopi, filed a criminal petition seeking to quash Crime No. 242 of 2025, registered by the Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Korukonda, East Godavari District. The crime was registered under Section 7-B read with Sections 8-A and 8-B of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. The petitioner, who runs a grocery business and sells jaggery, was implicated as an accused based on the alleged confession statement of a co-accused. The petitioner argued that there was no seizure from him, and his business of selling jaggery is legal, for which he holds a valid license and regularly pays GST. He submitted certificates to this effect.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can be implicated as a co-accused in a case registered under Section 7-B read with Sections 8-A and 8-B of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995, solely based on the alleged confession of a co-accused, when there is no seizure from the petitioner and his business of selling jaggery is legal. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that selling jaggery is a legally permissible activity. He argued that his business is duly registered, he possesses a valid license, and regularly pays GST. He emphasized that there was no seizure of any goods from his possession and that implicating him based on a co-accused's confession statement, without any direct evidence linking him to any prohibited activity, is unjustified. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments presented by the respondent (State) beyond the initial registration of the crime.