Gugulothu Sandeep v. The state of Telangana

Petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be p.leased to turtn"r proceedings in C.C. No. 1477 of 2025, arising outof Crime No. 157 of "il 2025 ol Mothey Police Station, pending on the file of the court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet, during the pendency of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petrtion and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S Mahesh, Advocate for the Petitioner and Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3749 of 2026 Date: 13.03.2026 Between Gugulothu Sandeep and two others Petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State ofTelangana, Hyderabad and another Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking to quash the order in C.C.No. 1477 ol 2025 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civit Judge, Suryapet. against petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offences under Sections .I 34(A) of the Telangana Excise Act

2. Heard Mr. S. Mahesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Pubtic Prosecutor for the respondents 2

3. Learned counsel fbr the petitione rs submitted that the issue rarscd in this criminal petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in Crl,P.No.l5636 of 2013,dated04.03.2022

4. Learned Additionat Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submission rnadc by the leamed counsel lor petitioners.

5. 'laking into consideration the submissions made by the respectivc parlres and the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.l 5(116 of 2013, dated 04.03.2022, this criminal perition is allowed.'['he proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.l4l7 of 2025 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet are hereby quashed Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed / Sd/- A.SREENIVAS REDD\ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/' ,ial .\-/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional Junior Civil Judge Suryapet 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Mothey' Suryapet District' 3. One CC to Sri S Mahesh, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana' at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies .W (Enclose a copy of the orders in Crl P No '15636 of 2013' daled 24 'O3 2022 lo this order) HIGH COURT DATED: 1310312026 i.' ORDER CRLP.No.3749 ot 2O26 rii S o ) 25 trq (..1!'.1 * o ,t' ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION B rJ vl')" THE IION'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAI(IR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15635 of 2O13 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistart Public Prosecutor, who is representing the respondent.

2. This Criminal 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 accused No.2 in C.C.No.1O2 of 2013, 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 rlw. Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 as well 2 Dr CSL. J Crl P.No. l s6J6 ot 20 I3 as under Section 34{e) of the Telalgana Excise Act, 1968. The Court took cognizance ol the narrated offences against both the accust:d and numbered the case as C.C.No.102 of 2013 and comrnenced 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 ocists any justifable grounds to tnuoke tlrc pouer granted under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. ond to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner/ Acansed No.2 in C.C.No.LO2 of 2O13 on the file of the Court of Judicial Mogistrate of First Class, Armoor.

5. The case of the respondent/complainant, as could be perceived through the contents of the charge sheet, is that on 21.06.2012 on receipt of reliable information regarding illegal distillation and sale of ID liquor by some persons at Santhoshnagar Thanda of Bheemgal Manda.l, the Excise Officials accompanied by the panch witnesses proceeded to the said place and traced the smell of ID liquor coming ) 3 Dr.CSL, J Crl.P.No.l5636 of 20 l3 from a house ald, therefore, they entered into the said house and during search, they found two big mud vats buried underneath the ground, which were filted with black jaggery and a-lum for fermentation, which in lurn 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 jaggery was seized and the person from whom the black jaggery was purchased by the said person are arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 ald 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 'nil', he was falsely implicated in this case and, therefore, he approached this 4 DT,CSL, J Crl.P No 15636 of20l3 t.. 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 cven as per the version o[ 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 Public Prosecutor contended that the invoivement 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 ald, 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.47 8O2 / Ex.IIl. I I 2006- 13, dated 20. t2.20to. Placing relianct: on the said memo, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that possession of black jaggery or I I I J 5 Dr-CSL, J Crl.P-No.Is636 ot 20 r3 sale of the same does not fall within the purview of Section 2 of lhe Telangana Excise Act, 1968. For the purpose of analysis arrd continuation of discr.rssion 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 lst 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 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 definition of 'materia-I' u/s. 2 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 has not been accepted by the Government."

10. Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 defines certain words. Section 2 (22A1 of the Telangana Excise Act, :, l l i I I 6 DT CSL, J Crl P No.I5636 of 20I3 1'ri+ 1968 says what the word "material" includes. [t lays down as under " materiat' includes molasses, wash and such other substances as the State Government may, by notification, specifu; 1 1 - Thus, it is clear that the word 'material' includes molasses, wash and such other substalces as the State Government may by notif,rcation, specifo. 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 materia-ls 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 and the traders. It has clearly indicated that the proposai to include rotten j aggery under delinition 'material'under Section 2 of the Telalgana Excise Act, 1968, therefore, was not accepted by the Government. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner, who is mnning a General Store, being in possession of Jaggery, does not mean that he has l I 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, 1968.

12. Section 34 of the Telangana Excise Act lays down penalt5r 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 (22Al, 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 Telangarra prohibition Act, 1965, the version of the respondent is that the petitioner/Accused No.2 has committed offence punishable under Sectioo 7-A r /w. Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995. Section 7-A of the Telangana I I t. CSL J CrI P.No. I5636 or 20I3 Prohibition Act, 1995 prohibits production, manufacture, storage, possesslon, collection. purchase, sale and transportation 'rf arrack. Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 envisages that the person, who contravenes the proviston of Section Z-R oi 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 hne, which shall not be iess 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 wrll 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 regarcling the merits of the case and the legal 9 Dr.CSL, J Crl.P.No.l5636 of20I3 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 2013 on the hle 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(IR SUMALI\THA, J Date: 04.03.2022 NOTE : L.R. Copy be majked (B/o) Msr 10 Dr.CSL, J CrL P No.15636 ot20l3 THE HON,BLI' DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMAL,ATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15636 of 2013

04.o3.2022 (Msr)