✦ High Court of India · 25 Sep 2025

The High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 25 Sep 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
25 Sep 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,093 words

The State of Telangana, Through S. H. O. , Nirmal prohibitaon and Excise Station, Nirmal District, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. ...RespondenUComplainant 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 C. O. R. No. 242 of 2025 on the file of Nirmal Prohibition and Excise Station, Nirmal District against the Petitioners/Accused. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that an the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. the High Court may be pleased to grant STAY of all further proceedings against Petrtioners/Accused pursuant to C.O.R- No.242 of 2025 on the file of Nirmal Prohibition and Excise station, Nirmal District, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. ) This Petrtion coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimi ral Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Arvapalli Shiva Sai Nath Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public F'rosecutor on behalf of the Respondent state. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12614 ot 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in COR No.242 of 2025 on the file of Nirmal Prohibition and Excise Station, Nirmal District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 34 (e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968.

2. Heard Mr.A.Shiva Sainath, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the order dated 04.03.2022 in Crl.P.No.15636 o'f 2013 and enclosed a copy of the said order.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the issue in the present criminal petition is squarely covered by the earlier order in the above criminal petition. -,/ 2 - EI-I), J Crl.l'12614 2025

5. Perused the record. The allegation against the petitioners is that they were found in possession of black jiggery.and alum. lt is alleged that the said black Jaggery is used as a rnaterial in preparation of lD liquor and that the petitioners had been selling it to earn gooc returns as it is used in the manufacture of such liquor. An Fllt has been registered under Section 34 (e) of the Act, which pr:scribes penalties for the illegal import, e)iport, etc., of prohibited materials mentioned therein, without any license or permit. Specifically, Section 34(e) of the Act penalizes the use and possessicn of any materials, stills, utensils, irnplements, or apparatus wlratsoever for the purpose of manufactr.rring any intoxicant othr:r than toddy

6. The merterial alleged to have been seized herein is black jiggery and alum. lt is pertinent to refer to Section 2 (2114) of the Act reads as under "m aterial' includes molasses, wash and such other sutlstances as the State Government may, by nol ifrcation, specify"; 7 Further. proceedings were issued by the Government of Andhra Pradr:sh in Memo No.47802lEx.lll.1/2006-11|. dated 7 -3 Ll'D. J Crl.P 12614 l02l

20.12.2010. and the contents of the said memo are extracted "The attention of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A.P., Hyderabad is invited to the reference 1st cited, wherein he has senf proposal for inclusion of Rotten Jaggery under definition of material in A.P. Excise Act, 7968 so as to ensure effective control of lD 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 agiculture produce or its bi-products and inclusion of the same in the list of the 'materials' used in the manufacture of lD 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 'material' u/s. 2 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 has not been accepted by the Government." B, Thus, a conjoint reading of Section 34(e) of the Act, the definition of "material" under Section 2(22A\ o'f lhe Act, and the recitals of the Government Memo daled 20.12.2010, would lead to the conclusion that black jaggery is not a material as enumerated under Section 2(224) ot the Act. Hence, it cannot { ETI). J lrl.P l16l-l 102-i be held that the petitioners have committed an offence as laid down under Section 34(e) of the said Act.

9. Similar matters have been disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.'1 5636 of 2013, wherein the proceedings against the petitioner therein were quashed, holding tha: taking cognizance for possession of black jaggery would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Apprlying the same analr)gy, this Court is also of the opinion that the continuatiorr of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

10. ln view of the foregoing discussion, the Criminerl Petition is allowed anrJ the proceedings against the petitionerrs/accused Nos.1 and 2 in COR No.242 oI 2025 on the file of Nirmal Prohibition and Excise Station, Nirmal District, are hereby quashed. As a :;equel, the miscellaneous petitions pend ng, if any, shall stand c osed. SD/- A.PRATHIMA PU'TY REGISTRAR D I: I -/- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To.

1. The Station House Officer, Nirmal prohibition and Excise Station' Nirmal District.

2. One CC to S . Arvapalli Shiva Sai Nath, Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CCs to Public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Tetangana. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies YIR /PSL H|GH COUFt"t' DATED:25101t12025 \, ORDER CRLP.No 12614 of 2025 !( 2 3 0i:T ?{n5 o /j, 3 p,t. r C. ltF-il ,' c) ,/ ALLOWING CF THE CRIMINAL PETITIOhI. (A- 23 \ \.. )\

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments