The High Court · 2025

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

2. The Prohibition and Excise Sub-lnspector, Kachtguda Police Station, Hyderabad. ...RespondenUDefacto-Com plainants 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 COR No.59l2022dated.19/08/22 filed against the petitioners/Accused No.7 and 8 before Prohibition and Excise Kachiguda Police Station, Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 2OF 2022 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 investigation and arrest of the petitioners in coR.No.S9 t2022 before Prohibition and Excise Kachiguda Police Station. 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 M.vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos-1 and 2. The Court made the following: ORDER -7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAI, PETI TION No.7483 of 2022 ORDER: This Criminal petition has been frled under.Section 4g2 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (for short, .Cr.p.C.) by the petitioners/accused Nos.7 and g, seeking to quash the proceedings in COR No.59 of 2022 on the frle of the Prohibition and Excise, Kachiguda Excise Station, for the offences punishable under Section 7(A) r/w g(e) of the Andhra Pradesh prohibition Act, 1995 and Section 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act. 196g.

2. Heard Mr. Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for the petltroners and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent Nos.l and 2.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue raised in this criminal petition is squarely covered by the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.3315 of 2025 and order dated 1g.06.2025 n 2 Criminal petition No.4022 of 2025. Learned counsel placed the copy of the above said orders by duly serving upon the leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has not disputed the same.

5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the order dated

07.03.2025 passed by this Court in Crirninal Petition No.3315 of 2025 and order dated 18-06-2025 in Crirninal petition No.4022 of 2025, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings against the petitioners in COR No.59 of 2022 on the frle of the Prohibition and Excise, I(achiguda Excise Station, are liable to be quashed-

6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos-7 and 8 in COR No.59 of 2022 on the file of the Prohibition and Excise, I(achiguda Excise Station, for tl e offences punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, : l 3 1995 and Section 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. To, SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// t- OFFICER Hvderabad.

1. The lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magisqate, Nampally-' Hyderg.bad i. iii" Siiti". House Officer. prbntOition aid Excise Police Station, Kachiguda, e. t'ir:,"ct i; the pubtic prosecutor, High court for the state of Tetangana at +. ohJCC to Sri Da'modar Mundra, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies Hyderabad [OUTI NVB/PSL Yt- : ,*, HIGH COURT DATED:0210912025 L, ', ORDER CRLP.No.7483 of 2022 rA;)'Xr =) a-) i t-> !i'i? ?s6 '(' 1,t -_ i: ,,. g. \1i l\.r.- --'.\: '' ---- l-i.. , ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION s,dd YKy' l i I I I I I I I ; l l l ! THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.4022 OF 202s ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (tor 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 34(1)(ii) and 34(2) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968.

3. Heard Mr. Damodar Mundra, Iearned 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 illicitly distilled liquor. lt is further alleged that he supplies these materials to customers upon receiving orders. 2 C11.P.No.4022_2025

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 merely 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 Criminat Petition No. 1664 of 2025, considered a similar issue and concluded that, in the absence of any evidence showing that the petitioners processed intoxicating substances, they cannot be held liable for any offence under the Excise Act. Consequenfly, 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 Additionar Pubric prosecutor fairry 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. 3 NTR.J C.LP .No.4O22 2023

8. 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.1/2006-1 3, 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 ielangana Excise Act was declined. After considering the purport of Section 2(22A), Sections 34, 13(1X0, 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 extracted 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 is that any materials which have undergone any process towards the manufacture of any intoxicant or from which an intoxicant has been manufactured; for the possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily. There is no material to show 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) of 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 committed 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 petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 5 amounts to abuse of process of law." 4 NTR=I Crl.P.No.4022_2025 /

9. In light of the settled legal position discussed above, and given that the sole allegation against the petitioner is his involvement in the business of black jaggery powder, it is clear that allowing 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. 45 of 2024, pending before the XVII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cyberabad at Maheshwaram, R.R. District, are liable to be quashed. Ordered accordingly.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4 in C.C.No.45 of 2024 on the file of the XVll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cyberabad at Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed Date:18.06.2025 Ccm/svl N.TUKARAMJI, J