Bhukya Janardhan @ Janardhan Nayak v. The State of Telangana

First Class Magistrate-Curn-Prohibition and Excise Court at Kharnrnam Distdct, wherein the petitioner rvas arrayed as sole accused fbr the oflence punishable under Section 34(e) ofthc f.S.Excise Act. t9(r8

#2. Heard Mr.N.Naveen. leamed counsel representing N,lr. Laxrnaiah \ i Kanchani, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Rarnachandra I{eddy, lcarned Additional Public Prosecutor lor respondcirt. ,)

#3. Learned counr; cl fbr the p,:titioner subnritted that the issue raised - in this criminal petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No. 1.5616 of 2011, dated04.03.2022

#4. Leamed Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submission rnade by tlte learned counsel fclr petitioner.

#5. Takin-g into consideration thc submissions made by the respective parties and the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.l56i6 of 2013, dated 04.03.2022, this criminal petition is allorved. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.l in C.C.No.2 I 12 of 2022 on the file of the leamed Judicial [jirst Class N,fagistrate-Cunr-Prohibition and Excise Courl at Kiarnnraur District are lrereby' quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, ifany, shall stand closed. Sd/- C. DEEPIKA TANT REGISTRAR S n SECTION OFFICER ,TRUE COPY' To,

#1. The lll Additional Judicial First Class lvlagistrate, at Khammam. 2. The Station House Officer, Chinthakani Police Station, Khammam District 3. One CC to SRI LAXMAIAH KANCHANI Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to SRI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court Buildings' Hyderabad [OUT]

#5. Two CD Copies E HIGH COURT DATED:0210212026 - ORDER CRLP.No.1138 of 2026 .T gg STA ,c I L-) (-) 11 rt8 zilm rO ,-1+ * z r) * CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED. 0 THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15636 of 2Ot3 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assista-nt Public Prosecutor, who is representing the respondent.

#2. This Crimilal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking the Court to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioner, who is arrayed as acclrsed No.2 in C.C.No. 1O2 of 2OI3, which is pending on the fi-le of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, NLamabad District.

#3. Through the material produced, what could be culminated and gathered by this Court is, that the Sub Inspector of Police for Prohibition and Excise, Bheemgal, charge sheeted the petitioner and another alleging that they committed offence punishable under Section 7-A r/w. Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 as well ) - DT.CSL J Crl.P.No.l5636 of 20 l3 - as under Section 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968. The Court took cognizance of the narrated offences against both the accused and numbered the case as C.C.No.102 of 2O13 and commenced the proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner, who is accused No.2 in the said calendar case, is before this Court.

#4. Thus, in the light of the afore-mentioned factual scenario, the point that emerges for consideration is: Whether there exists any jusffiable grounds to inuoke the power granted under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and to quash the proceedings pending agoinst the petitioner/ Accused No.2 in C C.No.102 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Annoor.

#5. The case of the respondent/complainant, as could be perceived through the contents of the charge sheet, is that oo 27.06.2012 on receipt of reliable information regarding illegal distillation and sale of ID liquor by some persons at Santhoshnagar Thanda of Bheemgal Mandal, the Excise Officials accompanied by the panch witnesses proceeded to the said place and traced the smell of tD liquor coming 7 - Dr.CSL, J Crl.P No.15636 ol20 l3 from a house and, therefore, they entered into the said house and during search, they found two big mud vats buried underneath the ground, which were filied with black jaggery and alum for fermentation, which in turn would be used for distillation of ID liquor. 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 ID liquor i.e., black jaggery from the petitioner herein.

#6. Thus, the person from whose possession, the fermented j"gg.ry was seized ald the person from whom the black jaggery was purchased by the said person are arrayed as Accused Nos. I and 2, respectively.

#7. Making his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2, is running a Kirana Store and though his involvement in the alleged crime is hil', he was falsely implicated in this case and, therefore, he approached this .- Dr.CSL, J Crl-P.No.15636 of2Ol3 Court seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that selling of black jaggery and alum by itself is not an offence and even as per the version of the prosecution, the petitioner was only selling black jaggery and alum in his shop and, therefore, continuation of proceedings against him should not be permitted.

#8. On the other hand, the learned Assistant h-rblic 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 ID liquor, he was selling the same and, therefore, he is liable for prosecution.

#9. 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.478O2 I Ex.Ifi.l / 2006-13, dated 20.12.2O1O. Placing reliance on the said memo, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that possession of black jaggery or 5 Dr.CSL. J Crl.P.No 15636 of 20 l3 sale of the same does not fall within the purrriew of Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968. For the purpose of analysis and continuation of discussion in a fruitful manner, the contents of the said memo, are extracted as under: "The attention of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A.P., Hyderabad is invited to the reference 1$ cited, wherein he has sent proposal for inclusion of Rotten Jaggery under defrnition of material in A.P. Excise Act, 1968 so as to ensure effective control of ID arrack crime and to improve Government Revenue. 2- Government after careful examination of the matter, hereby decided that Black Jaggery or Rotten Jaggery or any other form of Jaggery are viewed as agriculture produce or its bi-products and inclusion of the same in the list of the 'materials'used in the manufacture of ID liquor may adversely affect the interest of genuine ryots and the traders. Hence, it was decided not to impose restriction on any agriculture produce, particularly on Jaggery.

#3. Hence, the proposal to include rotten jaggery under dehnition of 'material' u/s. 2 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 has not been accepted by the Government."

#10. Section 2 of the Telalgana Excise Act, 1968 defines certain words. Section 2 (22A\ of the Telangana Excise Act, t) Dr.CSL, J Crl.P.No.l5636 of2Ol3 1968 says what the word "material" includes. It lays down - as under: " mateial' includes molasses, wash and such other substances as the State Government may, by notification, specify; 1 1 . Thus, it is clear that the word 'material' includes molasses, wash and such other substances as the State Government may by notihcation, speci$. By the Memo referred supra, the Government has decided not to impose restrictions on any agricultural produce, particularly on jaggey, black jaggery or rotten jiggery, in the list of materials used in the manufacture of ID liquor, as the Government opined that inclusion of the same may adversely affect the interest of the genuine ryots ald the traders. It has clearly indicated that the proposal to include rotten jaggery under definition 'material'under Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968, therefore, i,vas not accepted by the Government. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner, who is running a Genera-l Store, being in possession of Jaggery, does not mean that he has I - 7 Dr.CSL, J Crl.P No.15636 of 20 l3 committed an offence punishable under Section 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, i968.

#12. Section 34 of the Telangana Excise Act lays down penalty for illegal import, export etc. of the prohibited material mentioned therein without any license or permit. Section 34(e) penalizes the use, keeping in possession any material, stills, utensils, implements or apparatus whatsoever for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy. As earlier discussed, black 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 committed an offence as laid down under Section 34(e) of the said Act. i3. Coming to the contents of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1965, the version of the respondent is that the petitioner/Accused No.2 has committed offence punishable under Section 7-A r/w. Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995. Section 7-A ol the Telangana 8 DT.CSL, J Crl.P.No.I5636 of 20 I3 -II Prohibition Act, 1995 prohibits production, manufacture, storage, possession, collection, purchase, sale and transportation of arrack. Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 envisages that the person, who contravenes the provision of Section 7-A of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 be punished with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend upto eight years and with fine, which shall not be less than rupees two lakhs.

#14. It is not the version of the Excise officials, even as per the contents of the charge sheet, that the petitioner was found in the process of producing, manufacturing, storing, possessing, collecting, selling or transporting arrack. Therefore, he will not fall within the ambit of Section 7-A of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995, for which punishment is prescribed under Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995.

#15. Thus, in the light of afore-mentioned discussion that went on regarding the merits of the case and the lega-l 9 Dr.CSL. J Crl P.No.I5636 of 20 l3 position involved, this Court unhesitatingly holds that taking cognizance against the petitioner by the Court is unjustifiable and, therefore, it amounts to abuse of process of law.

#16. Resultantly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings that are pending against the petitioner/ Accused No. 2 in C.C.No.102 of 2O13 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor, are hereby quashed.

#17. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if aly, shall stand closed. DT. CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J Date: 04.O3.2O22. NOTE r L.R- Copy be ma-rked (B/o) Msr