High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr'P'C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition' the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in FIR No 7 of 2022' daled' 06-01-2022 on the file of the SHO Yellandu Police Station' Bhadradri Kothagudem District I.A. NO:2OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr'P'C praying that in the circumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmay be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including not to arrest the Petitioner/Accused no.2 in FIR No' 7 of 2022' dated 06-01-2022 on the file of theSHoYellanduPoliceStation,BhadradriKothagudemDistricttillthedisposal of the Main Quash Petition .'' + c,r,t" 7 This petition comin Grounds or criminar :"ilJ..:".1'"J Sri Laxmaiah Kanchani, Advocate for Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respond Respondent No.2. uPon perusing the Memorandum of pon hearing the arguments of the Petitioner and the Assistant ent No. 1 and none appeared for the The Court made the following: ORDER I I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMI NAL PETITIO N No. 540 of 2022 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 4a2 of Cr'P'C' seeking the Court to quash the proceedings that are pending who is arrayed as accused No'2 in against the Petitioner' of Yellandu Police Station' Bhadradri F.l.R.No.7 of 2022 Kothagudem District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 34(e) of Telangana State Excise Act'

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor' who is representing respondent No.1'

3. The case of respondenUcomplainant' as could be perceived through the contents of the F l'R ' is that on 06'01 '2022 on receipt of reliable information regarding illegal distillation and sale of lD liquor by some persons' the Sub-lnspector of Police Excise accompanied by the panch witnesses proceeded to the Sompet Forest Check Post and conducted vehicular check and apprehended the driver of the auto bearing No'TS 28 f 7324' I I I i, I I I I 2 crt.p.tro.s+o o/zsoiz during search, they found 200 kgs of Jaggery and SO kgs of Alum, total worth Rs.12,000/_. On enquiry, the person present therein revealed his identity particulars. The said person further revealed that he is manufacturing and selling ID liquor for his livelihood and he is purchasing raw material used for distillation of lD liquor i.e., black jaggery and alum from the petitioner herein. 4 Thus, the person from whose possession, the fermented jaggery and alum was seized and the person from whom the jaggery and alum was purchased by the said person are arrayed as Accused Nos..l and 2, respectively.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2, is the owner of M/s.Daduram Sathyam Trading Company and is doing business under valid ricense, registered under the Government of lndia, i.e., Form GST REG_06 Registration Certificate No.36ACCPL7 127K2ZF and though his involvement in the alleged crime is ,nil', he was falsely implicated in this case and, therefore, he approached this Court seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that selling of jaggery and alum by I JS,J Cr1.P.No 54o of 2022 itself is not an offence and even as per the version of the prosecution' the petitioner was only selling iaggery and alum in his shop and' therefore' continuation of proceedings against him should not be permitted' He further conlended that the Kothagudem excise officials interfered with the business of the petitioner and he was constrained to fited W'P'No 23448 ol 2020 and this court was preased to pass an order daled 30'12'2o20 directing the police officials not to interfere with the business activitY of the Petitioner'

6. On the other hand' the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the involvement of the petitioner/Accused No'2 is found and though he was prohibited to sell the material that is used in manufacturing of lD liquor, he was selling the same and, therefore, he is liable for prosecution' 7. During the course of hearing' learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court' the proceedings issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in Memo No.47802/Ex. I I l' 1 /2006-1 3, daled 20'12'201 0' Placing reliance on thesaidmemo,Iearnedcounselforthepetitionercontendedthat possession of jaggery or sale of the same does not fall within the 4 purview of Section 2 of the Telangana purpose of analysis and continuation manner, the contents of the said memo, crr p.No.sco o/#z ExciseAct, .lg68. Forthe of discussion in a fruitful are extracted as under: tr#4idrlr,*in$*pf;:ffi *ru*ruy*m m ::l;* lyidtl:?,flii' tx"",t:T:, ffi 'n # ::r B section 2 0f the Terangana Excise Act, 1g6B defines certain words. Section 2 (22A) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1g68 says what the word ,,material,, includes. lt lays down as under: "material' includes molasses, wash and such other substances as the State Government ,rV, OV nofit""tio-r,, -.pu"ifl4

9. Thus, it is clear that the word ,material, includes molasses, WaSh and such other substances as the State Government may by notification specify. By the Memo referred supra, the Government has decided not to impose restrictions on anv 5 JS'J Crl.P.No 540 of 2022 agricultural produce' particularly on jaggery' black iaggery or rotten iaggery, in the list of materials used in the manufacture of lD liquor, as the Government opined that inclusion of the same may adversely affect the interest of the genuine ryots and the traders. lt has clearly indicated that the proposal to include rotten jaggerY under definition 'material' under Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act' 1968, therefore, was not accepted by the Government' Thus' it is clear that the petitioner' who is runntng a Trading company, being in possession of Jaggery' does not mean that he has committed an offence punishable under Section 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968' 10. Section 34 of the Telangana Excise Act lays down penalty for illegat import, export etc' of the prohibited material mentioned therein without any license or permit' Section 34(e) Penalizes the use, keePing ln possession anY material, stills, utensils' implements or aPParatus whatsoever for the purpose of As earlier manufacturing any intoxicant other discussed, jaggery does not fall within the term 'material" as enumerated under Section 2 (22A) of the Telangana Excise Act' 1968. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioner has than toddY I I 6 JS.I Crl.P. No.;.rO of2d22 E committed an offence as laid down under Section 34(e) of the said Act

11. Thus, in the light of afore_mentioned discussion that went on regarding the merits of the case and the legal position involved, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminar proceedings against the petitioner_accused No.2 amounts to abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed

12. Resultanfly, this Criminal petition is allowed The proceedings that are pending against the petitioner/ Accused No. 2 in F.l.R.No.7 of ZO22 of yellandu police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 34(e) of Telangana State Excise Act, are hereby quashed As a seq uel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ISTANTREGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at yellandu I House Officer, yeilandu potice Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem 5H,.:"1:,'". 3 4 One CC to Sri. Laxmaiah Kanchani, Advocate tOpUCl Two CCs to public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies YIR //- Xl-:-'3.1.:l-:*Tfx---*:xlrrg- :.,- :'.ir---,.' .. 'a ... i .ii r.- : J. .:- :' ati::i''.I' ..i--a:,:1q-f3.15h3q-4qr _ *-*.. _x: HIGH COURT DATED:1Tt}6t2}2s Y '/- r^l _ . .._ .16 SiP 2U5 lt, ,-i * S r,r. r .t" ORDER CRLP.No.540 of 2022 oF THE cRlNttNAL PErtrtoN' ALLov{tNG q r qa $ 't/ I

Petition under Section 482 of Cr'P'C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition' the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in FIR No 7 of 2022' daled' 06-01-2022 on the file of the SHO Yellandu Police Station' Bhadradri Kothagudem District I.A. NO:2OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr'P'C praying that in the circumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmay be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including not to arrest the Petitioner/Accused no.2 in FIR No' 7 of 2022' dated 06-01-2022 on the file of theSHoYellanduPoliceStation,BhadradriKothagudemDistricttillthedisposal of the Main Quash Petition .'' + c,r,t" 7 This petition comin Grounds or criminar :"ilJ..:".1'"J Sri Laxmaiah Kanchani, Advocate for Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respond Respondent No.2. uPon perusing the Memorandum of pon hearing the arguments of the Petitioner and the Assistant ent No. 1 and none appeared for the The Court made the following: ORDER I I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMI NAL PETITIO N No. 540 of 2022 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 4a2 of Cr'P'C' seeking the Court to quash the proceedings that are pending who is arrayed as accused No'2 in against the Petitioner' of Yellandu Police Station' Bhadradri F.l.R.No.7 of 2022 Kothagudem District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 34(e) of Telangana State Excise Act'

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor' who is representing respondent No.1'

3. The case of respondenUcomplainant' as could be perceived through the contents of the F l'R ' is that on 06'01 '2022 on receipt of reliable information regarding illegal distillation and sale of lD liquor by some persons' the Sub-lnspector of Police Excise accompanied by the panch witnesses proceeded to the Sompet Forest Check Post and conducted vehicular check and apprehended the driver of the auto bearing No'TS 28 f 7324' I I I i, I I I I 2 crt.p.tro.s+o o/zsoiz during search, they found 200 kgs of Jaggery and SO kgs of Alum, total worth Rs.12,000/_. On enquiry, the person present therein revealed his identity particulars. The said person further revealed that he is manufacturing and selling ID liquor for his livelihood and he is purchasing raw material used for distillation of lD liquor i.e., black jaggery and alum from the petitioner herein. 4 Thus, the person from whose possession, the fermented jaggery and alum was seized and the person from whom the jaggery and alum was purchased by the said person are arrayed as Accused Nos..l and 2, respectively.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2, is the owner of M/s.Daduram Sathyam Trading Company and is doing business under valid ricense, registered under the Government of lndia, i.e., Form GST REG_06 Registration Certificate No.36ACCPL7 127K2ZF and though his involvement in the alleged crime is ,nil', he was falsely implicated in this case and, therefore, he approached this Court seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that selling of jaggery and alum by I JS,J Cr1.P.No 54o of 2022 itself is not an offence and even as per the version of the prosecution' the petitioner was only selling iaggery and alum in his shop and' therefore' continuation of proceedings against him should not be permitted' He further conlended that the Kothagudem excise officials interfered with the business of the petitioner and he was constrained to fited W'P'No 23448 ol 2020 and this court was preased to pass an order daled 30'12'2o20 directing the police officials not to interfere with the business activitY of the Petitioner'

6. On the other hand' the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the involvement of the petitioner/Accused No'2 is found and though he was prohibited to sell the material that is used in manufacturing of lD liquor, he was selling the same and, therefore, he is liable for prosecution' 7. During the course of hearing' learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court' the proceedings issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in Memo No.47802/Ex. I I l' 1 /2006-1 3, daled 20'12'201 0' Placing reliance on thesaidmemo,Iearnedcounselforthepetitionercontendedthat possession of jaggery or sale of the same does not fall within the 4 purview of Section 2 of the Telangana purpose of analysis and continuation manner, the contents of the said memo, crr p.No.sco o/#z ExciseAct, .lg68. Forthe of discussion in a fruitful are extracted as under: tr#4idrlr,*in$*pf;:ffi *ru*ruy*m m ::l;* lyidtl:?,flii' tx"",t:T:, ffi 'n # ::r B section 2 0f the Terangana Excise Act, 1g6B defines certain words. Section 2 (22A) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1g68 says what the word ,,material,, includes. lt lays down as under: "material' includes molasses, wash and such other substances as the State Government ,rV, OV nofit""tio-r,, -.pu"ifl4

9. Thus, it is clear that the word ,material, includes molasses, WaSh and such other substances as the State Government may by notification specify. By the Memo referred supra, the Government has decided not to impose restrictions on anv 5 JS'J Crl.P.No 540 of 2022 agricultural produce' particularly on jaggery' black iaggery or rotten iaggery, in the list of materials used in the manufacture of lD liquor, as the Government opined that inclusion of the same may adversely affect the interest of the genuine ryots and the traders. lt has clearly indicated that the proposal to include rotten jaggerY under definition 'material' under Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act' 1968, therefore, was not accepted by the Government' Thus' it is clear that the petitioner' who is runntng a Trading company, being in possession of Jaggery' does not mean that he has committed an offence punishable under Section 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968' 10. Section 34 of the Telangana Excise Act lays down penalty for illegat import, export etc' of the prohibited material mentioned therein without any license or permit' Section 34(e) Penalizes the use, keePing ln possession anY material, stills, utensils' implements or aPParatus whatsoever for the purpose of As earlier manufacturing any intoxicant other discussed, jaggery does not fall within the term 'material" as enumerated under Section 2 (22A) of the Telangana Excise Act' 1968. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioner has than toddY I I 6 JS.I Crl.P. No.;.rO of2d22 E committed an offence as laid down under Section 34(e) of the said Act

11. Thus, in the light of afore_mentioned discussion that went on regarding the merits of the case and the legal position involved, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminar proceedings against the petitioner_accused No.2 amounts to abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed

12. Resultanfly, this Criminal petition is allowed The proceedings that are pending against the petitioner/ Accused No. 2 in F.l.R.No.7 of ZO22 of yellandu police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 34(e) of Telangana State Excise Act, are hereby quashed As a seq uel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ISTANTREGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at yellandu I House Officer, yeilandu potice Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem 5H,.:"1:,'". 3 4 One CC to Sri. Laxmaiah Kanchani, Advocate tOpUCl Two CCs to public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies YIR //- Xl-:-'3.1.:l-:*Tfx---*:xlrrg- :.,- :'.ir---,.' .. 'a ... i .ii r.- : J. .:- :' ati::i''.I' ..i--a:,:1q-f3.15h3q-4qr _ *-*.. _x: HIGH COURT DATED:1Tt}6t2}2s Y '/- r^l _ . .._ .16 SiP 2U5 lt, ,-i * S r,r. r .t" ORDER CRLP.No.540 of 2022 oF THE cRlNttNAL PErtrtoN' ALLov{tNG q r qa $ 't/ I