APHC010089102026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1367/2026 Between: 1.JULURI SESHAGIRI RAO, S/O SUBBARAO, AGED 40 YRS , R/AT D. NO. 168-1-98/1TANGELLAMUDI, NEARTHILAK NAGAR, ELURU, WEST GODAVARIDISTRICT 2.JULURI GANESH, S/O SUBBARAO, AGED 38 YRS , R/AT D.NO. 168- 1-98/1TANGELLAMUDI, NEARTHILAK NAGAR, ELURU, WEST GODAVARIDISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through the Sub Inspector of Police , Eluru II Town P.S., EluruRepresented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court atAmaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.RAVURI LEELA SAI SAMPATH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 Crl.P.No.1367 of 2026 23.02.2026 Dr.YLR,J ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.212 of 2025 on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate cum for Trial of cases under A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act, Eluru. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The L.W.14, who is the Sub- Inspector of Police, Eluru II Town Police Station, registered Crime No.715 of 2021 for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short, ‘the A.P. Excise Act’), Sections 269, 271 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the I.P.C.’), and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’). Upon completion of investigation, L.W.15 laid the charge sheet. It is pertinent to note that Rule 3 of the A.P. Excise Rules, 1972 unequivocally stipulates that where the investigation is undertaken by a police officer, such officer shall not hold a rank below that of an Inspector of Police. 3 Crl.P.No.1367 of 2026 23.02.2026 Dr.YLR,J 4. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant, who initiated and undertook the process of search, seizure, inspection of the alleged contraband, investigation, and ultimately filing of the charge sheet, is only a Sub- Inspector of Police attached to Eluru II Town Police Station. Being an officer subordinate in rank to an Inspector of Police, he is legally incompetent to carry out such investigative acts under the statutory mandate. Consequently, the entire investigation and the resultant charge sheet suffer from a fundamental lack of jurisdiction. 5. As seen from the record, an officer in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police registered the case in Crime No.715 of 2021 under Section 34(a) of ‘the A.P. Excise Act’. Rules 2 and 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Powers and Duties) Rules, 1972, lay down as under: “Rule-2. Officers authorised to enter and inspect places of manufacture and sale.-- (1) The Deputy Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner of Excise (Enforcement) the Superintendent for Distilleries, the Assistant Superintendent for Distilleries or any other Excise Officer not below the rank of an Excise Sub-Inspector (under their administrative control) may exercise the powers, under clauses (a) and (c) of Section 52 of the Act and enter and inspect at any time, by day or by night any place in which any licensed manufactures or stores any intoxicant, examine the accounts or registers; and also [ examine, test, measure or weigh any materials, stills, utensils, implements, apparatus or intoxicant found in such place. (2) The Deputy Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner of Excise (Enforcement) the Excise Superintendent, the Assistant Excise Superintendent or any other Excise Officer not below the rank of an Excise Sub-Inspector having jurisdiction over the place may exercise the powers under clauses (b) and (c) of Section 52 of the Act and enter and inspect any place in which any intoxicant is kept for sale by any person holding a licence under the Act at any time within the hours during which sale is permitted and at any other time during 4 Crl.P.No.1367 of 2026 23.02.2026 Dr.YLR,J which it may be open and to examine the accounts or registers and also examine, test, measure or weigh any material or intoxicant found in such place. (3) Any Officer of the Revenue Department of and above the rank of a Tahsildar and every Police Officer of and above the rank of Deputy Superintendent having jurisdiction over the place, is empowered to exercise the powers under Section 52. Rule 3. Powers to arrest without warrant, to seize articles liable for confiscation and to make searches.-- (1) Any Excise Officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector, any Police Officer of and above the rank of an Inspector and any officer of the Revenue Department of and above the rank of a Deputy Tahsildar having jurisdiction over the place may- (a) arrest without warrant any person found committing an offence punishable under Sections 4, 35, 36 or 37; (b) seize and detain any excisable or other article which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under the Act or any other law for the time being In force relating to excise revenue; and- (c) detain and search any person upon whom and any vessel, raft, vehicle, animal, package, receptacle or covering in or upon which he may have reasonable cause to suspect any such article to be. (2) The officers of the Government employed in the Revenue Department exercising the power under Section 53 shall, however follow the procedure prescribed in Sections 59 and 60 and make over the case for investigation by an Excise Officer under Sections 57 and 58 and for prosecution under Section 61 of Act.” 6. A fair reading of Rules 2 and 3, it can be gleaned that Rule 2 authorizes specified Excise Officers (not below the rank of Excise Sub-Inspector), certain Revenue Officers, and specified Police Officers to enter, inspect, and examine licensed premises dealing with intoxicants under Section 52 of ‘the Act’. Rule 3 empowers Excise Officers not below Sub-Inspector rank, Police Officers of and above Inspector rank, and Revenue Officers of and above Deputy Tahsildar rank to arrest without warrant, seize liable articles, and conduct searches in respect of specified excise offences. Revenue Officers exercising 5 Crl.P.No.1367 of 2026 23.02.2026 Dr.YLR,J such powers must follow the prescribed procedure and hand over the case for investigation and prosecution to the competent Excise Officer under ‘the Act’. 7. As per Rule 3, only a Police Officer of and above the rank of Inspector has the power to arrest without warrant, to seize the articles liable for confiscation, and to make searches. 8. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Juluru Seshagiri Rao v. State of A.P.,1 quashed the FIR registered for the offences punishable under Sections 269, 271 and 279 of the IPC and Section 51(b) of ‘the Act’; however, insofar as the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of ‘the A.P. Excise Act’ is concerned, it was directed that the police were at liberty to continue the investigation and follow the procedure in accordance with law. 9. Another learned Single Judge of this Court in Kola Sai Teja v. State of A.P.,2 quashed the FIR registered for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of ‘the A.P. Excise Act’. 10. In K.L. Subbayya v. State of Karnataka3, it was held that non- compliance with the provisions of Section 54 of ‘the A.P.Excise Act’, before proceeding to conduct a search and without prior recording of the grounds for 1 Crl.P.No.4374 of 2021, vide order dated 09.05.2023 2 Crl.P.No.4803 of 2021 by order dated 04.02.2025 3 (1979) 2 SCC 115 6 Crl.P.No.1367 of 2026 23.02.2026 Dr.YLR,J belief that an offence under the Act is being committed, renders the entire search without jurisdiction and vitiates the launching of criminal proceedings. 11. 11. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab4, the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the following principles: "(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice; (ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction; (iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and (iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge." 12. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal5, the Hon’ble Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 4 AIR 1960 SC 866 5 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 Crl.P.No.1367 of 2026 23.02.2026 Dr.YLR,J (3) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 13. This Court in Juluri Seshagiri Rao v. State of A.P6 case observed as under: “As per Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Powers and Duties) Rules, 1972, the power to arrest without warrant, to seize articles liable for confiscation, and to make searches is conferred only on a Police Officer of and above the rank of Inspector. All the Investigating Officers in C.C. No.213 of 2025 are not in the cadre of Inspector of Police; they are all Sub-Inspectors of Police. Rule 3 of the A.P. Excise Rules, 1972, has to be read strictly. Since the investigation was conducted by officers not competent under the Rules, the entire proceedings are vitiated. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C. No.213 of 2025 are liable to be quashed.” 14. Section 269 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ criminalises any negligent act likely to spread infection of a disease dangerous to life. The provision is attracted where the act is done unlawfully or negligently and is of such a nature that it may facilitate the spread of a harmful disease. Section 271 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ on the 6 Crl.P.No.1307/2026 dated 18.02.2026 8 Crl.P.No.1367 of 2026 23.02.2026 Dr.YLR,J other hand, penalises the intentional disobedience of a quarantine rule or restriction lawfully imposed by authorities. This section presupposes the existence of a validly issued order under law and requires deliberate non- compliance. Section 273 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ deals with the sale of noxious food or drink and punishes any person who adulterates or sells substances injurious to health, knowing or having reason to believe them to be harmful. 15. While the aforesaid provisions fall within the broad spectrum of public health and safety offences, each of them contains clear statutory ingredients. Section 269 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ requires a negligent act, Section 271 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ requires wilful disobedience of a lawful direction, and Section 273 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ requires sale or distribution of harmful consumables with knowledge of their injurious nature. The applicability of these offences depends entirely on whether the prosecution establishes the foundational facts that constitute the essential ingredients prescribed under each section. 16. Although offences under Sections 269, 271 and 273 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ have been invoked, the investigation itself was conducted by a Sub- Inspector of Police, who is legally incompetent under Rule 3 of the A.P. Excise Rules, 1972 to undertake search, seizure, inspection, investigation, or filing of a charge sheet. Since the very initiation and continuation of the investigative process is without jurisdiction, the prosecution under these penal provisions cannot be 9 Crl.P.No.1367 of 2026 23.02.2026 Dr.YLR,J sustained in law, rendering the proceedings vitiated on account of lack of authority and statutory competence. 17. The prejudice test operates as a judicial sieve to discern whether an irregularity or infraction has occasioned a miscarriage of justice of such magnitude as to vitiate the proceeding; it compels the Court to look beyond the mere factum of procedural dereliction and to ascertain whether the accused has suffered demonstrable detriment in the conduct of the defence, the fairness of the trial, or the eventual adjudicatory outcome. Put differently, not every deviation from the lex fori is fatal per se, only that species of illegality which impinges upon substantive rights, corrodes the integrity of the process, or subverts statutory safeguards will attract curial intervention. The inquiry is thus outcome- relevant and rights- sensitive: the Court tests whether the impugned irregularity is a harmless lapse or whether it has precipitated real and not illusory prejudice, thereby imperilling the ends of justice and warranting annulment. 18. In the case at hand, the investigative enterprise, from search and seizure through to the laying of the charge sheet, was piloted by a Sub- Inspector, an authority structurally incapacitated by Rule 3 of the A.P. Excise Rules, 1972 to exercise such coercive powers, besides the cognizance bar under Section 60 of ‘the Act’. This is not a curable lapse but a jurisdictional nullity, striking at the root of competence and rendering the process a legal 10 Crl.P.No.1367 of 2026 23.02.2026 Dr.YLR,J cipher. When the investigative foundation itself is erected dehors the statute, the resultant prosecution is intrinsically tainted, the prejudice is presumed and structural, for the accused has been dragged through a process neither sanctioned by law nor overseen by an officer endowed with lawful authority. The prejudice test, accordingly, is satisfied ex facie: the breach is not merely technical but one that inheres in the very assumption of power, contaminating all subsequent steps and necessitating the quashment of proceedings to vindicate due process. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab7, at paragraph No. 21 held as under: “21. “Failure of justice” is an extremely pliable or facile expression, which can be made to fit into any situation in any case. The court must endeavour to find the truth. There would be “failure of justice”; not only by unjust conviction, but also by acquittal of the guilty, as a result of unjust failure to produce requisite evidence. Of course, the rights of the accused have to be kept in mind and also safeguarded, but they should not be overemphasised to the extent of forgetting that the victims also have rights. It has to be shown that the accused has suffered some disability or detriment in respect of the protections available to him under the Indian criminal jurisprudence. “Prejudice” is incapable of being interpreted in its generic sense and applied to criminal jurisprudence. The plea of prejudice has to be in relation to investigation or trial, and not with respect to matters falling outside their scope. Once the accused is able to show that there has been serious prejudice caused to him, with respect to either of these aspects, and that the same has defeated the rights available to him under criminal jurisprudence, then the accused can seek benefit under the orders of the court.” 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rafiq Ahmad v. State of U.P8 at paragraph Nos.35 & 36 held as under: 7 (2012) 10 SCC 476 8 (2011) 8 SCC 300 11 Crl.P.No.1367 of 2026 23.02.2026 Dr.YLR,J “35. When we speak of prejudice to an accused, it has to be shown that the accused has suffered some disability or detriment in the protections available to him under the Indian criminal jurisprudence. It is also a settled canon of criminal law that this has occasioned the accused with failure of justice. One of the other cardinal principles of criminal justice administration is that the courts should make a close examination to ascertain whether there was really a failure of justice or whether it is only a camouflage, as this expression is perhaps too pliable. With the development of law, Indian courts have accepted the following protections to and rights of the accused during investigation and trial: (a) The accused has the freedom to maintain silence during investigation as well as before the court. The accused may choose to maintain silence or make complete denial even when his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is being recorded, of course, the court would be entitled to draw an inference, including adverse inference, as may be permissible to it in accordance with law; (b) Right to fair trial; (c) Presumption of innocence (not guilty); (d) Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 36. Prejudice to an accused or failure of justice, thus, has to be examined with reference to these aspects. That alone, probably, is the method to determine with some element of certainty and discernment whether there has been actual failure of justice. “Prejudice” is incapable of being interpreted in its generic sense and applied to criminal jurisprudence. The plea of prejudice has to be in relation to investigation or trial and not matters falling beyond their scope. Once the accused is able to show that there is serious prejudice to either of these aspects and that the same has defeated the rights available to him under the criminal jurisprudence, then the accused can seek benefit under the orders of the court.” 21. The allegation against the Petitioners are that they committed an offence punishable under Section 51(b) of ‘the Act’. However, Section 60 of ‘the Act’ expressly bars any Court from taking cognizance of an offence under ‘the Act’ except upon a complaint in writing made by the designated authority or an officer duly authorised in this behalf. In the present case, the record 12 Crl.P.No.1367 of 2026 23.02.2026 Dr.YLR,J unequivocally demonstrates that no such complaint was ever lodged by the competent authority. Instead, the Sub- Inspector of Police proceeded to register the case and ultimately laid the charge sheet, despite having no statutory competence to do so under the mandate of Section 60 of ‘the Act’. 22. This procedural infraction goes to the very root of jurisdiction. Cognizance taken in the absence of a valid complaint by the competent authority is not a mere irregularity but a fatal defect that vitiates the entire prosecution. The legislative scheme of the Act clearly contemplates that offences under Section 51(b) of ‘the Act’ must be initiated only through a complaint mechanism and not through a police- filed charge sheet. The investigative officer, lacking both authority under ‘the Act’ and eligibility under Rule 3 of the A.P. Excise Rules, 1972, could not have validly set the criminal law in motion. 23. In the backdrop of these circumstances, and in view of the fact that the very initiation of proceedings under ‘the Act’ is contrary to the statutory requirements, the filing of the charge sheet under Section 51(b) of ‘the Act’ is patently unsustainable in law. 24. With the above reasons, the proceedings in C.C.No.212 of 2025 on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate cum for Trial of cases under A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act, Eluru are quashed. 25. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. 13 Crl.P.No.1367 of 2026 23.02.2026 Dr.YLR,J As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 23.02.2026 VTS