High Court · 2025

'l . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

2. The Prohibition and Excise Sub-lnspector,, Shamshabad Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. Respondent RespondenUDefacto-Complainant 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 quash above C.C No 6954 of 2021 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise cum Vll Additional Junior Civil Judge cum Vll Additional lvtetropolitan Magistrate at RR District, LB Nagar against the petitioners. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 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 stay all further proceedings including personal attendance of the petitioners in above c_c.No. 6954 of 2O21 on the file of special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise cum Vll Additional Junior Civil Judge Cum Vll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at RR District, L B Nagar pending disposal of the present Criminal Petition- This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusrng the l\,4emorandum of Grounds of crimirrar petition and upon hearing the arguments or sri DAMoDAR IVUNDRA, Advocate for the petitioner and the Addr. pubric prosecutor (rG/Ap) on behalf of the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1664 ot 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 5 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.6954 of 2021 pending on the file of the Special Judicial First Class lVlagistrate for Excise- cum-Vll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Vll Additional Ivletropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L-8. Nagar, registered for the offences under Sections 34(e) rlw. 34(2), 13(1)(f) and 42(c) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 (Telangana Adoption Orders, 2015). 2 Heard Sri Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The Sub-lnspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise Station, Shamshabad, charge sheeted the petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 5 along with others alleging that they have committed the aforesaid offences. Basing on the same, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused and numbered the case. t 2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submil.s that the sale, purchase and transportation of jaggery is not prohibite,d under Law. The jaggery is an arqricultural produce lt is not an intoxicant, nor a prohibited commodity. Therefore, no offence is made ourt against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 5 and continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners anlounts to abuse of process of law and prayed to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned Additionarl public Prosecut,cr for the State submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwiser of the allegations levelled against them would come out only after conducting full_fledged triarl before the trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

6. The Government of Andhra pradesh yr.de [Vlemo No.47BO2lEx.lll. 1/2006-13, dated 20.12.2010 der:tined to impose any ban or restriction on Black Jaggery or Jaggery under the Telangana Excise Act and that possession of jaggery or sale of the same does not fall 3 within the purview of Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act. The contents of the said Memo are extracted as u nder: "The attention of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A.P., Hyderabad is invited to the reference 1"t cited, wherein he has sent proposal for inclusion of Rotten Jaggery under definition of mateial in A.P. Excise Act, 1968 so as fo ensure effective control of lD arrack cime and to improve Government Revenue. 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 restrictioit on any agiculture produce, particularly on Jaggery. Hence, the proposal to include rotten jaggery under definition of 'mateial' u/s. 2 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 has not been accepted by the Government."

7. Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act, defines certain words. Section 2 (22A) of the Telangana Excise Act, says what the word "material" includes, which is as follows: "material" includes molasses, wash and such other sutrslances as ,he Sfafe Government may, by notification' specify;"

8. lt is clear that the word 'material' includes molasses, wash and such other substances as the State Government may by notification specify. By the lVlemo referred supra, the Government has decided not to 4 ,t{-j- impose restrictions on any agricultural produce, particularly on jaggery, black jaggery or rotten jaggery, in the list cf materials used in the manufacture of lD liquor, as the Government opined that inclusion of lhe same may adl,ersely affect the interest of the genuine ryots and the traders. lt has clearly indicated that the proposal to includrs rotten jaggery under definition ,material, under Section Il of the Telangana Excise Act, was not accepted by the Government.

9. Sections 34 and 13(1Xf) of the Telangana Excise Act, lays down penalty for illegal import, export etc., and for manufacture of the prohibited material mentioned therein vyithout any license or permit. Section 34(e) penalizes the use, keeping in possession any rraterial, stills, utensils, implements or apparatus whatsoever for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy. The presumption given under Section 42(c) of the Excise Act is that any materials which have undergone any process towards the manufacture of any into)(icant or from which an intoxicant has been manufactured, for the possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily. There is no material to show that the \ \ 5 petitioners have processed the said black jaggery for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant substance. As earlier discussed, jaggery does not fall within the term 'material', as enumerated under Section 2 (22A) of the Telangana Excise Act. Thus, it is clear that the t I petitioners, who are engaged in the business of purchase and sale of Jaggery, have not committed the offences alleged against them.

10. ln view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 5 amounts to abuse of process of law

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 5 in C.C.No.6954 of 2021 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class [Vlagistrate for Excise-cum-Vll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Vll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar, are hereby quashed I I I I l l , , 6 As ar sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// S T dt- MOHD. ISMAIL T REGISTRAR N ASSI CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise cum VII Additional Junior Civil Judge Cum Vll Additional ttletropolitan lVlagistrate at RR District, L B Nagar

2. One CC to SRI DAMODAR MUNDRA Advocate [OP[JC] 3 One CC to TFIE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HlcH COURT, HYDERABAD,(OUT)

4. Two CD Copies w HIGH COURT DATED:0610212025 ORDER CRLP.No.1664 of 2025 t c' ') o o t 1H E- STA 14: 2 1 ilAn 2025 * rn-6H(c ,i ( ., c *f * i ALLOWING THE I3RL. PETITIONER b ?