The High Court · 2025

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

2. The Prohibition and Excise Station House Officer, Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District ...RespondenUDefacto-Complainant Petition under section 482 of cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash c.c.No 45 ol 2024 on the file Junior civil Judge-cum-XVll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class cyberabad at Maheshwaram, Rangareddy District in the interest of justice. t.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 482 of cr.P.c 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 petitioner in c.c.No. 45 ot 2024 on the file Junior civil Judge-cum-XVll Additionat Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cyberabad at Maheshwaram, Rangareddy District pending disposal of the present Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Damodar Mundra, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri Jithedender Rao Veerammal, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER ( lr' THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.4022 OF 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.45 of 2024, on the file of the learned XVll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cyberabad at Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4 in the Calendar Case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3a(1)(ii) and 3a() ot T.S. Excise Act, '1968.

3. Heard Mr. Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is engaged in the business of selling black jaggery powder and alum, as well as related materials, which are allegedly used in the manufacture of illicifly distilled liquor. lt is further alleged that he supplies these materials to customers upon receiving orders. 2 N I'RJ Cd l'No {022 2025 !-\ \l\' ---5

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that none of the prosecution's evidence demonstrates the petitioner's involvement in the actual distillation of illicit liquor. He argues that me.rely conducting business in black jaggery powder and alum does not, in itself, warrant prosecution. Furthermore, he submits that this Court, by order dated

06.02.2025 in Criminal Petition No. 1664 of 2025, considered a similar issue and concluded that, in the absence of any evidertce showing that the petitioners processed intoxicating substances, they cannot be held liable for any offence under the Excise Act. Consequently, the proceedings were quashed. As the issue contested in the present petition is directly covered by the earlier judgment, learned counsel prays for the same relief and requests that the current proceedings be quashed.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly concedes that this aspect has already been considered and decided by this Court in the aforementioned criminal petition, and that the legal proposition established therein is directly applicable to the present case.

7. I have reviewed the materials on record and carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both parties J ( n l' \o ]i'l: \ ilt. I lL)15 r B. A coordinate bench of this Court, in Criminal Petition No 1664 of 2025, examined the Memo issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh (No 47802/Ex lll.1/2006-'l3, dated 20.12.2010). wherein the request to impose a ban or restriction on the possession or sale of black jaggery or jaggery under Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act was declined. After considering the purport of Section 2(22A1, Sections 34, 13(1 X0, and 42(c) of the Telangana Excise Act, the Court held that engaging in the business of purchasing or selling jaggery does not constitute an offence. The relevant portion is el:tracted hereunder: "Sections 34 and 13(1)(f) of the Telangana Excise Act, lays down penalty for illegal import, export etc., and for manufacture of the prohibited material mentioned therein without any license or permit. Section 34€ penalizes the use, keeping in possession any material, 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 rs that any materials which have undergone any process towards the manufacture of any intoxicant or from which an intoxtcant has been manufactured; for the possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily. There is no material to shovi that the 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) ol the Telangana Excise Act. Thus, it is clears that the petitioners, who are engaged in the business of purchase and sale of jaggery, have not commrtted the offences alleged against them. ln view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the proceedings against the pelitioners-accused Nos.2 and 5 amounts to abuse of process of law." ! t I I 4 N rR.l Crl I) No.+r2 2{125 -\-1 9 In right of the set ed regar position discussed above, and given that the sore a,egation against the petitioner is his invorvement in the business of black jaggery powder, it is crear that arowing the proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the judicial process. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioner (Accused No. 4) in c.c. No. 4s of 2024, pending before the )0/II Additionar Judiciar Magistrate of First Crass, Cyberabad at Maheshwaram, R.R. District, are liable to be quashed. Ordered accordingly '10' For the aforesaid reasons, the criminar petition is ailowed and the proceedings against.the petitioner/accused No.4 in C.C.No.45 of 2024 0n the fire of the XV, Additionar Judiciar Magistrate of First crass, Cyberabad at Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed. Pending misce_llaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// To, SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR (\r- ON OF SECTI FICER UyDeraDad at Maheshwaram. Ranoaredv District 1 IL:^J_Tigl 9ivil Judge-cum-XXVt I Additionat Merropotitan Magistrate 2. The Station House Officer, Maheshlwaram Excise Station, Rangareddy 3. Two ccs to the Pubric prosecutor, High court for the State of rerangana at 4. One CC to Sri Damodar Mundra, Advocate tOpUCI 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] District. NVBPSL HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 810612025 ,(;ii:;^':'l :-:\ ,\ ""\, 1tt,.,,|.' i. - 1. za 2 0 rtlB 106 L) a.'^ . ORDER CRLP.No.4022 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION