The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SMT. WSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION 11().2067 0F 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Lo quash the proceedings against the petitioner/ accused in C O'R'No'42 of 2025 of Devarakonda Prohibition and Excise, Nalgonda Drstrict' The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 34 (e) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968

2. Heard Sri A. Shiva Sainath, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent. Perused lhe record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the order dated O4'O3'2O22 in Criminal Petition No.15636 of 2013 and enclosed a cop,v of the said order. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also stlbmitted that 4. the issue in the present criminal petition is covered by the earlier order in the above criminal petition. 2

5. In view of the said representation and as the matter is squarely covered by the order in the above criminal petition, this criminal petition is allowed in terms of the above said order, adopting the reasoning contained therein. The proceedings against the petitioner/ accused in C.O.R.No.42 of 2025 of Devarakonda Prohibition and Excise, Nalgonda District are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall st?nd closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 E Judicial First Class Magistrate Devarakonda The Station House Officer. Proh & Excise Station, Devarakonda Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sd Arvapalli Shiva Sai Nath, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies I Along with the Copy of the Order dated 04-03-2022 in Crl-P.No.15636 of 2013 ] $ HIGH COURT DATED:1310212025 \ ORDER CRLP.No.2067 ot 2025 P.o r H E ..;+< ( c 25 r l) r * a)-- ((\ t- -l a ?a?5 l cf) ALLOWING THE CRLP 9 G){ W '} THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATIIA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15636 of 2013 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, who is representing the resPondent.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 4a2 of' Cr.P.C. seeking the Court to quash the proceedings that are pending against the pctitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2 in C.C.No.1O2 of 2013, which is pending on the hle of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, Nizamabad Dlstrict. 3 Through the material produced, what could be culminated ald gathered by this Court is, that the Sub Inspector of Police for Prohibition and Excise, BheemgaJ' charge sheeted the petitioner and another alleging that they committed offence punishable under Section 7-A r /w' Section 8(e) of the Telartgana Prohibition Act, 1995 as well 2 Dr.CSL, J Crl P:!o 15636 ot2O13 as under Section 3,+(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968. The Court took cognizance of the narrated offences against both the accused ancl numbered the case as C.C.No.102 of 2013 and commenced the proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the pctitioner, 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, thc point that emerges for consideration is: Whether there exi.sts ang justifiable grounds to inuoke the potuer graruted under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and to quash the proceedings pending aga.inst Lhe petitioner/ Accused No.2 in C-C.No.1O2 of 2O13 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrote of First Closs, Armoor.

5. The case of the respondent/complainalt, as could be perceived through the contents of the charge sheet, is that on 21 .06.2072 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 ID liquor coming 3 Di-CSL, J crl P No 15636 oI2013 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 filled with black jaggery and aJum for fermentation, which in turn would be used for distillation of ID iiquor. 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 jaggery was seized and the person from whom the black jaggery was purchased by the said person are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 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 invoh'ement in the alleged crime is 'nil', he was falsely implicated in this case and, therefore, he approached this 4 Dr.CSL, J CrlP No.15636 of 20 l3 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 biack jaggery and alum in his shop and, therefore, continuation of proceedings against him should not be permitted. 8, On the other hand, the learned Assistalrt Publia Prosecutor contended that the involvement of the pet itroner/ Accused No.2 is found and though he was prohibited to se1l the material that is used in manufacturing of lD liquor, he was selling the same and, therefore, he is liable for prosecution.

9. Durrng the course of hearing, Iqarned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court, the proceedings issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in Memo No.47802 / trx.IIl.1/2006 13, dated 20.72.2O7O. Placing reliance on the said memo, Iearned counsel for the petitioner contended that possession of black jaggery or 5 DT,CSL J Crl P No I5636 of2013 sale of the same does not fall within the purview 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"t cited, wherein he has sent proposal for inclusion of Rotten Jaggery under deltnition 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 cxamination of the matter, hereby decided that Black Jaggery or Rotten Jaggery or any other form of Jaggery erre viewed as agriculture produce or its bi-products and inclusion of thc same in the list of the 'materials' used in the manufacture of [D liquor may adversely affect the interest of genuine ryots alld the traders. Hence, it was decided not to impose restriction on any agriculture produce, particu larly on Jaggery.

3. Hence, the proposal to include rotten Jaggery under definition of 'material' u/s. 2 of A.P- trxcise Act, 1968 has not been accepted by the Government."

10. Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 dehnes certain word.s. Section 2 (22A1 of the Telangana Excise Act, 6 Dr CSL. J Crl.P No.l56il6 oI20l il 1968 says what the word "material" includes. It lays down as under: " materiaf includes molasses, wash and such other substan<:es as the State Government may, by notification, specify; 1 1. Thus. it is clcar that the word 'material' includes molasses. wash ald such other substalces as the State Govcrnrncnt may by notification, specifo. By the Memo referred supra, the Government has decided nof to impost: 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 Govcrnment opined that inclusion of the same may adversely affect the interest of the genuine ryots and the traclers. It has clearly indicated that the proposal to include rotten .iaggen/ under definition 'material' under Section 2 of the 1'elatrgana Excrse Act, 1968, therefore, was not accepted bv the Government. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner, rvho is running a General Store, being in possession of .Jaggery, does not mean that he has ) 7 Dr CSL, .l Crl P No 15636 of20l3 committed an offence punishable under Section 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968.

12. Section 34 of the Telangana Excise Act lays down penalty for illegal import, export etc. of thc 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 j^ggery does not fall within the term 'material', as enumerated under Section 2 l22Al 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) ol lhe said Act.

13. 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 Dr.CSl.. J Crl P No.15636 oI20 l3 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 thc provision of Section 7-A of the Telangana Prohibrtion Act, 1995 be punished with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend upto cight years and with fine, which shall not be Iess than I upccs lwo lakhs

14. It is not the vcrsion of thc Excise officials, even as per the conteuts of the charge sheet, that the petitioner was found rn the process of producing, manufacturing, storing, possessing. collecting, selling or transporting arrack' Therelorc, he will not lall within the ambit of Section 7-A of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995, for which punishment is prescribed under Section 8(") of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995.

15. Thus, in the light of afore-mentioned discussion that went on rcgarcling the merits of the case and the legal \ \ 9 Dr CSL, J C.l.P No.15636 of 20 l3 position involved, this Court unhesitatingly holds that taking cognizance against the petitioner by the Court is unjustrfiable 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 2013 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor, ard hereby quashed.

17. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DT. CHILLAKTIR SUMALATHA, J Date: 04 .O3.2O22 NOIE. L.R Copy bc marked (B/o) Msr