The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. Through SHO, Police Station Madhura Nagar, HYderabad District. S. lqbal Hussain, S/o. Not known to petitioners, Aged about Major, Occ. Sub-lnspector of Police, Police Station Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/ De-facto Complainant 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 pleased to QUASH the cc.No.4639 of 2024 on the file of the court of the XIV Additional Chief [Vletropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offence under section 34(a) ol Telangana Excise Act, 1968, against the petitioner/Accused No.1 . 7 l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 )' Petition under Section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in 1.he circumstances stated in the l\4emorandum of Grounds of criminal petition. :he High court may be pleased pleased to grant. STAy of all further proo€,edings, including appearance, in cc.No.4639 of 2024 on the file of the court cf the XIV Additional chief Metropolitan lr/lagistrate, Hyderabad, for the offence unrj<:r section 34(a) of Telangana Excise Act, '1968 against the petitioner/Accur;e,d No.1, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing ttrer Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing fire arguments of sri sridhar Lonkala, Advocate for the petitioner and lri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Reslrondent No. l and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12539 ot 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioneriaccused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.4639 of 2024 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 34 (A) and 36 (1) (c) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 2 Heard Mr.Sridhar Lonkala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No. 1-State.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2, i.e., Sub-lnspector of Police, Police Station Madhura Nagar, on

18.10.2023 at 21:00 hours, received credible information that one person was indulging in transporting of liquor illegally from the premises i.e., H.No.8-3-430/33, Yellareddyguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, without any valid license from the concerned authorities. Believing the said information to be true and 2 ETD, J Cri.P 12539 202-5 \ authentic, he obtained permission from the supe'ior officer and drafted search proceedings under Section '165 of the Cr.P.C., and secured the presence of two mediators i.e. Sri V. Chandra Shekar and Sri S. Vamshi Mohan. As there was no lime to obtain a search warrant from the Court and any delay, rp1n61 ""r"" disappearance of the accused and material evidence, at 21:30 hours, he, along with the patrol car staff, i.e., PC6339 Sri Shekar Babu and SPO0785 Sri Mahboob Basha, rushed to the spot, i.e., R/o H.No.8-3-430/33, Yellareddyguda, Ameerpet. Hyderabad, to verify the veracity of the information received by him. There, they noticed that a person by the name of Telagareddy Ramesh (petitioner/accused No.1) was found in illegal possession of liquor bottles. lmmediately, they took him into custody On enquiry, he voluntarily admitted guilt of illegally possessing IMFL and beer bottles without a valid license, Further, a confesr;i()n-cum-seizure panchanama was recorded, and IMFL (Officer's Choice 90 ml - 10 bottles) and Carlsberg Beer (12 bottles) wer€, seized from his possession under the cover of the said confesr;i,tn-cum-seizure panchanama in the presence of the above-rnentioned two panchas. He further revealed that his friends namely: Basa ,/.. 3 ETD. J Crl.P 12519 1025 Bharath Naga Pawan, and Jana Hemanth Satya Ganesh/accused No.3, had instructed him to bring liquor bottles for their needs. After completion of the seizure, they returned to the Police Station with the accused persons and seized the items at 22:45 hours.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Sections 56 and 57 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 (for short, 'the Act') it is only the prohibition and Excise Officer, who is competent to make investigation and to file reporUcharge sheet before the trial Court for the offence under Section 34 of Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment passed in Muthineni Chander and others V.State of Andhra pradesh and another in CrlP.No.5598 of 20091 , it is held under: "A.P.Excise Acl- Secflons 36(b)(C), 56 and 57 IMFL bottles - Seizure of, by lnspector of Police as so/d in violation of license conditions, investigation made and charge sheet filed by Sub- lnspector of Police, lllegality - Police Officer much /ess /nspecfo r of Police and Sub-lnspector of Police have no jurisdiction to investigate into offence punishable under Section 36 and to fite \ Izo11 (1) ALD (crr.)877 (AP) I I 4 I E]'D, J Crl.P 12539 2025 charge sheet before Magistrate - under Sec,fions 56 and 57 of Act, it is only prohibition and Lrcise Officer, who is competent to make invest gation and to file repofi/charge sheet before Magrstr.ate _ in that view of the matter, investigation mude by Sub-lnspector of Police and charge sheet ferd by him before Magistrate against petitioners hetd, without jurisdiction - Criminat petition altoued _ lmpugned proceedings quashed _ (Cirninat procedure Code 1973, Section 4g2)"

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further sub,mits without being competent the rnvestigating officer conducterr investigation and filed the charge sheet before the trial Court. Her ,also submits that as per Sections 56 and 57 of the Act, the p:lice have no jurisdiction to investigate the case and to fire charger r;heet before the concerned Court. He further submitted that a co_ordinate bench of this Court has quashed the proceeriirrgs against accused No.3, vide order dated O5.O8.2O2S in Crl.p.No.3056 of

2025. Hence, the petitioner is entifled to the same relief that was granted in favour of accused No.3. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. l 5 ETD, J Crl.P I25i9 202i

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissionoflearnedcounselforthepetitionerandpraysthis Court to dismiss the present Criminal Petition' In view of the above submissions, this Court is of the 7. opinion that respondent No'2 ought not to have filed the charge sheet by conducting investigation when the Police are not competent lo investigate the case as per Sections 56 and 57 of the Act Pertinently, the Prohibition and Excise Officer is to make investigation and to file reporUcharge sheet comPetent before concerned court for the offence punishable under section 36 0f the Act. The record further reveals that a co-ordinate Bench ofthisCourthasquashedtheproceedingsagainstaccusedNo.3 in Crl.P.No.3056 of 2025, by order dated 05 08'2025' Hence' in viewofthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,thisCourtisof consideredopinionthatcontinuationofproceedingsagainstthe petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law' g. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is Allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No'1 in C C No 4639 of2024onthefileoflearnedXlVAdditionalChiefMetropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed' &" 6 ETD. J Crl.P 12539 2025

9. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pr:nding, if any, shall stand closed SD/- K..BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i \i CTION OFFICER + //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan tvlagistrate, Hyderrtrad. 2. The Station House Officer, Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad l)istrict 3. One CC to Sri. Sridhar Lonkala, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana 5. Two CD Copies. Y,R /PSL aF/ HIGH COURT DATED:2410912025 ORDER CRLP.No.12539 of 2025 ,\-J ? i 0il 202,5 ':/ .;.' !'. \. a\ \ CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED. iD