SRIRANGAM VENKATA RAYAN{ @ ^srirangam Venkata Rama Narsaiah v. The State of Telanoana

The State of Telangana, through SHO, Nelakondapally Prohibition and Excise Station, Khammam District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court lbr the State ol Telangana at Hyderabad. .Respondent ORDER This Criminal Perition has been filed seeking ro quash the proceedings in C.O.R.No. 19 of 2026 on the file of l.,l :lakondapally Prohibition and Excisc Station, Khammam Distrit t wherein rhe petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2 for the oller:e punishable under Section 34(e) ofthe T.S.Excise Acr, 1968.

#2. Heard Mr.A. Shiva Sainath, learned corr rsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned A: ;istant public Prosecutor, for the respondent. 2

#3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised in this criminal petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No. l5 636 of 2013, d,ated 04.03.2022.

#4. Leamed Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submission rnade by the leamed counsel fbr petitioner

#5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective parties and the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.l5636 ol 2013, dated 04.03.2022, lhis criminal perition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.O.R.No. l9 of 2026 on the file of Nelakondapally Prohibition and Excise Station, Khammarn District is hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. i?'.'tif'.HAUL?JYAXI //TRUE COPY,, SECTTON OFFICER \i To, 1 2 3 G\ 4 The Station House Offrcer' Nelakondapally Prohibition & Excise Station Hff '{3:?*:$''""J'rerangana ' [l'*"g,],ri$,-Txf$'bLBtY5.:i]'uf ;t Hyderabad [OU ll Two CD CoPtes E/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:12102t2O26 ORDER CRLP.No.1851 of2026 4*", -:ri- '' ,i ti: i:it ts tqJ L,. A. = ALLOWING THE CRLP WITHOUT COSTS t ) ./\ THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15636 of 2o13 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 fiied under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking the Court to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2 in C.C.No. lO2 of 2OI3, which is pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, Nizamabad 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 lw. Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 as well 2 )r CSL,., a lPN. 15636of2013 as under Section 34(e) of the Telangana Ex<ri ;e Act, 196g. The Court took cognizance of the narrated olf :nces against both the accused and numbered the case as { ).e.lrl6.1g2 o1 2013 and commenced the proceedings. Ag13 ieved by the same, the petitioner, who is accused No.ll in the said ca-lendar case, is before this Court. 4 . Thus, in the light of the afore-menli )ned factual scenario, the point that emerges for considera t on is: Whether there exists any justifiable gro t td.s to inuoke the power granted under Sectior tg2 of Cr.P.C. ond to qua-sh the proceedings y nd, ing ogainst the petitioner/ Accused No 2 ii C.C.No.1O2 of 2013 on the file of the O urt of Judbial Magistrate of First Class, Anno,l ..

#5. The case of the respondent/complain€rn: as could be perceived through the contents of the charge I heet, is that on 27.06.2012 on receipt of reliable informati,,n regarding illegal distillation and sa_le of ID liquor by son ) pe rsons at Santhoshnagar Thanda of Bheemgal Maldat the Excise Officials accompanied by the panch witnesses . ,roceeded to the said place and traced the smell of ID I;< uor coming 3 Dr CSL, J Crl.P.No.15636 of 20 I3 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 alum for fermentation, which in turn would be used for distillation of ID tiquor. 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 mnning a Kirana Store and though his involvement in the alleged crime is ,nil,, he was falsely implicated in this case and, therefore, he approached this 4 Dr.CSL, J C.l P ,lr.r5636 ol2(113 Court seeking to quash the proceedings initirr ed against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further r:ontended that selling of black jaggery and alum by its< l is not an offence and even as per the version of the prost cution, the petitioner was only selling black jaggery and z lum in his shop ald, therefore, continuation of proceed r gs against him should not be permitted.

#8. On the other hand, the learned Assi:r'ant Public Prosecutor contended that the involventc: ,1. of the petitioner/ Accused No.2 is found and thol t h he was prohibited to sell the material that ir; used in manufacturing of ID liquor, he was selling th: same and, therefore, he is liable for prosecution.

#9. During the course of hearing, learned corr petitioner brought to the notice of this rsel for the )ourt, the proceedings issued by the Government of AndI ra Pradesh in Memo No.478o2lEx.lll.1/2006-13, dated I o.12.2010. Placing reliance on the said memo, learned co'r rsel for the petitioner contended that possession of blac < jaggery or .v 5 Dr.CSL, J crl.P No.15636 of20L3 sale of the same does not fatl 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 1st cited, wherein he has sent proposal for inclusion of Rotten Jaggery under definition 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--agiiculture produce or its bi-products and inclusiJn of the same in the list of the 'materials' used in the manufacture of ID liquor may adversely affect the interest of genuine ryots th" traders. Hence, it was decided not to "rri impose restriction on aly agricultr-rre produce' particularly on Jaggery. 3. Hence, the proposal to include rotten jaggery under definition of 'material' u/s' 2 of A P' Excise Act, 1968 has not been accepted by the Government."

#10. Section 2 of thle Telangana Excise Act' 1968 dehnes certain words. Section 2 (22A1 of the Telangana Excise Act' 6 DT,CSL, J i)-No 15636 of2013 1968 says what the word "material" includes. It lays down as under: " materiat' includes molasses, wash and srL, h other substances as the State Government r Lay, by notification, specifz; 1 1. Thus, it is clear that the word 'mato. ial' includes molasses, wash and such other substar ces as the State Government may by notification, spe :iff. By the Memo referred supra, the Government has decided not to impose restrictions on any agricultt r ai produce, particula-rly on jaggey, black jaggery or rotten j ggery, in the list of materials used in the manufacture of D liquor, as the Covernment opined that inclusion of tl1 r sarne may adversely affect the interest of the genuine r 'ots and the traders. It has clearly indicated that the propc,r al to include rotten jaggery under definition 'material' undrr Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968, therefcr :, was not accepted bir the Government. Thus, it is <:l :ar that the petitioner, who is mnning a General Str,r e, being in possession of Jaggery, does not mean - Lat he has 7 DT,CSL, J Crl.P No 15636 of 2013 committed an offence punishable under Section 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, I96g.

#12. Section 34 of the Telangala 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 .materia_l,, 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.

#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 Z-A r/w. Section g(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995. Sectio n 7_A of the Telangana 8 Dr.CSl, J (lrl.P No 15636 of 2013 Prohibition Act, 1995 prohibits productio. manufacture, storage, possession, collection, purch r ;e, sale and transportation of arrack. Section 8(e) ot the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 envisages that th : person, WhO contravenes the provision of Section 7-A o the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 be punished with imc -isonment for a term, which shall not be less than one year', but which may extend upto eight years ald with fine, u't i :h shall not be Iess than rupees two lakhs.

#14. It is not the version of the Excise offir:: rls, even as per the contents of the charge sheet, that th€ petitioner was found in the process of producing, manufzi, turing, storing, possessing, collecting, selling or trans;1 orting arrack. Therefore, he will not fall within the ambit t f Section 7-A of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995, for w I ch punishment is prescribed under Section 8(e) of -he Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995.

#15. Thus, in the light of afore-mentionetl discussion that went on regarding the merits of the car;, and the legal 1 I i J t\ & 9 Dr-CSL, J Crl.P.No.I5636 of 20t3 position involved, this Court unhesitatingly holds that taking cognizance against the petitioner by the Court is unjustiliable and, therefore, it amounts to abuse of process of 1aw.

#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 frle of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor, are hereby quashed.

#17. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Dr. CHILLAI(UR SUMALATHA, J Date: O4.O3.2O22. NOTE : L.R. Copy be marked (B/o) Msr