Yalla Srirama Chandra Murthy vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court directed the Station House Officer, Tuni Police Station, Kakinada District, to complete the investigation in Crime No. 157 of 2025 without taking coercive steps against the petitioner. This direction is based on the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, highlighting the petitioner's status as a GST-registered general merchant engaged in a bona fide commercial transaction and the allegation that illicit activities are solely attributable to the first accused. The Court clarified that this order does not preclude the Investigating Officer from filing a charge sheet or final report after the investigation is completed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition were closed.

Facts

The petitioner, Yalla Srirama Chandra Murthy, a general merchant and proprietor of Sri Raja Rajeswari Traders, registered under GST, is the second accused (A.2) in Crime No. 157 of 2025, registered at Tuni Police Station, Kakinada District. The case was registered under Sections 7(B) read with 8(B) & (C) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, based on a complaint by the second respondent. The petitioner's business involves the trade of jaggery, and it is alleged that the first accused (A.1) purchased jaggery from the petitioner. The petitioner contends that any illicit activities involving the jaggery are solely attributable to A.1, and the petitioner had no knowledge of such activities, having engaged in a bona fide commercial transaction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the investigation in Crime No. 157 of 2025 should proceed without coercive steps against the petitioner, considering his status as a GST-registered general merchant involved in a bona fide commercial transaction of jaggery, with alleged illicit activities attributed solely to the first accused? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner, a GST-registered merchant, was merely engaged in a legitimate commercial transaction of selling jaggery. He had no knowledge of any illicit activities involving the jaggery, which are alleged to be solely the responsibility of the first accused. Therefore, coercive steps against him are unwarranted. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondent/State regarding the petitioner's contention or the necessity of coercive steps.