APHC010534962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10403/2025 Between: 1. DADI VENKATESWARARAO, S/O SAMBAMURTHY, AGED 68 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS PROP. M/S SRI SIVA PARVATHI JAGGERY AND GENERAL MERCHANT D.NO. 5-25, YELESWARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 2. ELUSURI SUBRAMANYAM, S/O LATE KATAYYA, AGED 30 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O MAMIDADA VILLAGE, JAGGAMPETA MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, through S.H.O., SEB Korukonda SEB now Korukunda Proh. and Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban District, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court,Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10403/2025 ORDER: The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C)/under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in FIR No.416 of 2022 on the file of SEB Korukonda, Rajamahendravaram Urban District, for the offences punishable under Sections 7(B) r/w 8(C) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and Clause-3 of GUR Regulation of Order, 1968. 2. Heard Sri P.Aditya Harshavardhan, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that Petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the shop from which the jaggery was purchased, and Petitioner No. 2 is the driver of the auto through whom the jaggery was delivered. Except for these roles, they have no involvement in the alleged offence. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the petition, since there are clear allegations against the petitioners, it is not a fit case for quashment. 3 5. As can be seen from the mediator’s report, there are clear allegations against the petitioners. It is stated in the mediator’s report that Petitioner No. 2, i.e., Accused No. 2, was caught along with another person while dropping the black jaggery into the drums used for preparing illicit liquor. It is also stated that Petitioner No. 1, i.e., Accused No. 1, instructed Accused No. 2 to deliver the black jaggery to the place of offence and drop it into the drums. In view of the same, this is not a fit case for quashment, since specific allegations have been leveled against the petitioners. 6. In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 08.10.2025. UPS 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10403/2025 Dated.08.10.2025 UPS 55