The High Court · 2025

2. Kaoalavai Srinivas Rao, S/o Ramaseshalah' aged about 56 years, occ: Lorry owher, R/o H.No. 3-151, Durgi village and Mandal, Palnadu District ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 AND The State of Telan District, rep. by its qana. throuqh S.H.O. Penpahad Police Station, Suryapet Fublic Pros6cutor, High Cburt, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/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 call for the records relating to the c.c.No. 609 of 2024 on the file of ihe Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Suryapet and quash the prbceedings thereon ? l.A. NO:2 OF 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the appearance oi the petitioners in C.C. No. 609 ol 2024 on the file of the Additional .tliiciat First Class Magistrate at Suryapet, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri GAJANAND CHAKRAVARTHI, Advocate for the Petitioners and SRl. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Sole Respondent The Court made the follordng: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1593 of 2025 ORDER:

1. This Criminal petition is filed under Section S2g Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (tor short ,BNSS,) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.l & 2 in C.C.No.609 of 2024, pending on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First class Magistrate at suryapet, registered for the offence punishable under Section 34 (e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act').

2. Heard Sri Gajanand Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 as wefl as sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional public prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

3. Learned counser for the petitioners submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the order dated 04.03.2022 in crr.p.No.15636 of 2013.

4. Learned Additionar pubric prosecutor arso submitted that the issue in the present criminal petition is squarely covered by the earlier order in the above criminal petition. 2 ETD, J Crlp_I593 2025 \. a\

5. Perused the record. The allegation against the petitioners is that they were found in possession of G0 quintals of jaggery packed in 120 white bags each containing 50 kgs, and one bag of arum containing 50 kgs. lt is alleged that the said black Jaggery is used as a material in preparation of lD liquor and that the petitioners had been selling it to earn good returns as it is used ih tne manufacture of such liquor. An FIR has been registered under section 34 (e) of the Act, which prescribes penalties for the illegal import, export, etc., of prohibited materials mentioned therein without any license or permit. specifically, section 34(e) of the Excise Act penatizes the use and possession of any materials, stitts, utensils, implements, or apparatus whatsoever for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy. r

6. The material alleged to have been seized herein is black Jaggery and Alum. lt is pertinent to refer section z (2zA) of Excise Act which reads as under: "Material' includes molasses, wash and such other substances as the State Government ffi?y, by notifi cation, specify" ; 3 ETD, J Crlp-1593_2025

7. Further, proceedings were issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in Memo No.47g02/Ex.lll.112006-13, dated

20.12.2010 and the contents of the said memo are extracted below: "The attention of the Commr.ssioner of prohibition and Excise, A.P., Hyderabad is invited to the reference 1st cited, wherein he has sent proposal for inclusion of Roften Jaggery under definition of materiat in A.p. Excise Act, 1968 so as to ensure effective control of lD arrack crime and to improve Government Revenue. 2. Government after careful examination of the mafter, hereby decided that Black Jaggery or Roften 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 lD 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. lence, the proposalto include roften jaggery under definition of 'material'u/s. 2 of A.p. Exclse nct, tgOg has not been accepted by the Government." , B. Thus, a conjoint reading of section 34(e) of the Act, the definition of "material" under section 2(22A) of the Act, and the \ recitats of the Government Memo dated 20.12.2010 would tead to the conclusion that black jaggery is not a material as enumerated under section 2(22A) of the Act. Hence, it cannot be held that the petitioners have committed an offence as laid down under Section 3a(e) of the said Act. 4 n ETD, J Crlp_1593 2025

9. similar matters have been disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this court in crl.p.No.15636 of 2013, wherein the proceedings against the petitioner therein were quashed holding that taking cognizance for possession of brack jaggery would dmount to an abuse of the process of law. Applying the same analogy, this court is also of the considered opinion that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners herein would amount to an abuse of process of law.

10. ln view of the foregoing discussion, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in c.c.No.609 of 2024, pending on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First class Magistrate at suryapet, are hereby quashed.

11. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand ctosed. //TRUE COPYII SD'- C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 0 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Suryapet, Suryapet District 2. The Station House Officer, Penphad Police Station, Penphad, Suryapet District

3. One CC to SRI GAJANAND CHAKRAVARTHI Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] M- 5. Two CD Copies VM/PSL o c.-) 2$ ti,lu zffi -:.: i;) .-/:. t HIGH COURT DATED:2811012025 ORDER CRLP.No.1593 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITTON 1P