The High Court · 2025

Ihg S!q]e of Telangana, Rep. through its public prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad ...RESPONDEIIT NO.1 NO.1 ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.3 & 8

2. .M.Venkat Narsaiah, S/o Not Known, Age- I\Iaior, Occ_ inspector of police, p S Sircilla, Telangana. ...RESPONDENT NO.2 DEFACTO /COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS., praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in c.c.No.72o of 2021 , Jn the fire of Judicial First class tvlagistrate at sircilla,date d.06-04-2021, in respect of petitioners/Accused No.3 and 8. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2 025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to dispense with the appearance of the petitioners her.ein in c.c.No. ll0 of 20zland to stay arr further proceedings in c.c.No.720 of 2021, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Sircilla dated 06-04-2021. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri BURRA RAVITHEJA, Advocate for the petitioner and the public prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE }{ONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PE TITION No.1088 of 202$ ORDER This Criminal petition is filed by petitioners_accused Nos.2 and 8 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.720 of 2021 , pending on the file of the learned Judiciar Magistrate of First crass at Sircilla. The offences alleged are under Sections 1Bg, 269, 270 of the lndian Penal Code (for short ,lpC,) and 3 of the Epidemic Disease Act, '1897 (for short 'the Act, 1897) and 34(A) of the Telangana Excise Act (for short 'the Act').

02. Heard Sri Burra Ravi Theja, learned counsel for petitioners and sri Jithender Rao Veeramafia, rearned Additionar Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent. 03, Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations leveiled against the petitioners racks the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. He wourd further submit that the petitioners are the owner of lv/s. Shiva Bar and Restaurant having a vqlid ricense and permit to seil riquor and he did not indurge in iilegar sare of riquor. Since lock-down was imposed by the Government due to COVID_19 pandemic, the petitioners were not doing any business and just he kept the stock in the rodge situated in the first froor of the said Bar. 2 The petitioners having purchased the liquor under a valid invoice did not indulge in any illegal sale or transport of liquor'

04. lt is further submitted that the subject matter is squarely covered by a common order in Chidurala Shyamsubder v' State of Telanganal rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.Learnedcounselforthepetitionersfurthersubmittedthat this Court vide Orders dated 20 03 2023 passed in CRL P No'6062 of 202'1 quashed the proceedings against the accused Nos l'2'4'5 and 7 in same CC i.e. C C N o 72O of 2021 and that this Court vide Orders dated 21 -06.2021 passed in CRL'P No.2576 of 2021 quashed the proceedings against the accused No'6 Hence' he prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the present petitioners who are arraYed as accused Nos 3 and 8'

05. On the other hand' learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has tried to distinguish the principle laid down in the said judgment to the facts of the present case'

06. lt is apt to refer to Sections - 269 and 270 of IPC' which are as under: "269. Negligent act tikely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.-Whoever unlavtfulty or negligently ' CRL.P.No.373t of z\nd oatctr decided on 27 oB'2018 3 does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both." "270. Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.-Whoever malignantly does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be likely to spread the infection of any dlsease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

07. ln Chidurala Shyamsubder (supra), a learned Single Judge of the High Court observed that transportation of chewing tobacco or Khaini or Pan Masala do not constitute an offence punishable under Section - 270 of IPC and, therefore, the same is not an offence since it is not a noxious food. The learned Single Judge further observed as under: "....The act done by the petitioners i e., transportation of khaini and chewing tobacco though dangerous to human life, it would not spread or infect or cause any dlsease on account of transportation and if those products are consumed by human being, it woutd certainly cause damage to the health. Therefore, transportation of khaini or chewing tobacco is not by itself ls not an offence under Section - 270 of lpC and it would fall within Section 270 of lpC.', 4

08. Like-wise, Section - 269 of IPC deals with negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life. But, there is no such allegation mentioned in the complaint by the Police. ln the present case, the allegations against the petitioners herein are that they were illegally shifting liquor during Lock Down period with an intention to sell the same in black market to make wrongful gain. Thereafter, the police seized the said stock and the same is lying with them. ln view of the same, the contents of the complaint lacks the ingredients of Sections - 188, 269 and 270 of IPC and, therefore, the proceedings in the aforesaid case for the said offences are liable to be quashed against the petitioners.

09. As far as offence under Section 3 - of the Act, '1 897, is concerned, it deals with'penalty'. lt is apt to extract the same, which is as under: "Section - 3: Penalty. Any person disobeying any regulation or order made under this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under section 188 of the lndian Penal Code (45 of 1860 )".

10. ln view of the above provision, coming to the case on hand, the allegation against the petitioners herein is that they are selling the liquor at higher rates during Lock Down for wrongful gain. But, the Police neither mentioned in the charge sheet as to whom the petitioners were selling such liquor at higher rates, nor examined \ \ 5 those persons by recording their statements under Section - 16.r of cr.P.c. Thus, the contents of the compraint do not attract the offence punishable under section - 3 of the Act, 1897 against the petitioners herein. Therefore, the proceedings agarnst the petitioners herein for the offence punishabre under section - 3 of the Act, 1g97 are arso liable to be quashed in the above case.

11. As far as offence under Section 34 (a) of the Excise Act is concerned, it is trite to note that chapter - 7 dears with ,offences and penalties'. section - 34 dears with'penarties for iilegar import etc.' and the same is extracted as under: "34. Penalties for ittegal impoft etc. _ Whoever, in contravention of this Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any licence or permit granted or lssued under this Act,_ (a) imports, exports, transports, manufactures, col/ecfs or possesses or se//s any intoxicant;" I , I t 12 As stated above, the petitioners herein are running a Bar and Restaurant under the name and style ,,Shiva Bar and Restaurant" having obtained a varid excise ricense from the Beverages Corporation by paying requisite fee and the same is in force. The petitioners a[eged to have shifted the riquor botfles from his shop to the Lodge situated in the first floor of the same premises. The allegation against the petitioners is that they was selling the liquor I I I I 6 at higher rates for wrongful gain As already stated above' the police did not examine any person to whom they sold Thus' in the absence of the same and in view of the above discussion' this offence is also liable to be quashed'

13. ln view of the above discussion' the present Criminal petition is allowed in terms of the judgment in chidurara Shyamsubder (supra), and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos 3 and 8 in C.C No'720 oI 2021 pending on the file of learned Judicial tr/lagistrateofFirstClassatSircilla'areherebyquashed' As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications' if any' shall stand closed ,TRUE COPY' SD/.MOHD.ISMAIL T NT REGISTRAR AS SECTION OFFICER \ The Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class'at Sricilla' The Station House Officer, iiti"rii" io*n potit" Station' Rajanna Siricilla titi't". to the Public Prosecutor' High court for the state of relangana at ijl:"ff; 5nr. iiunnn RAVITHEJA' Advocate [oPUC] Two CD CoPies Hvderabad [OUT] \ To,

1. 2. 3 4 5 w \ HIGH COURT DATED:04102t2025 I ORDER CRLP.No.1088 of 2025 \ * 1 l'! E :i i',i - (.' - / 21 tlirn ?n5 'i c' ?s.. P4TCH f-_O .l ALLOWING IHE CRIMINAL PETITION @ W