The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12604 ot 2025 ORDER:- 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.231 of 2025, on the file of Mahabubnagar I Town Police Station, Mahabubnagar District, registered for the offence under Section 34(e) of T.S.Excise Act,'1968.

2. Heard Sri A.Shiva Sainath, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondenVState.

3. Learned petitioner's counsel submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the order dated 04.03.2022 in Criminal Petition No.15636 ol 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 covered by the earlier order in the above Criminal Petition. 2

5. ln vier,r, of the said representation and as the matter is squarely covered by the order in the above criminal petition, this Criminal Petiticn is allowed in terms of the above said order adopting the reasoninr=l contained therein. The proceedings against the petitioner/accr,rsed in Crime No.231 of 2025, on the file of Mahabubnagalr I Town Police Station, Mahabubnagar District, are hereby quashr:rd

6. Miscellarreous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. : SD/- \.('I]A\ I)II.A SEKHAII I{AO DI:PUTY RE(;ISTILAR ,TRUE COPY// \ I SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Station House Officer, tr/lahabubnagar District. Mahabubnagar l-Tovun Police Station'

2. One CC to Sri Arvapalli Shiva Sai Nath' Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana' [OUT] 4. Two CD CoPie"; 0Y JR /PSL HIGH COUR'T DATED:2510\112025 ORDER CRLP.No .121:i04 ot 2025 I :(Flb- .-. \ 1i r[1 Iflfr ]!l .t t. CRIMINAL P[:TlTlON lS ALLOWED. THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAI(UR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15636 of2O13 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Pubiic 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 2073, which is pending on the hle 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 r/w. Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 as well 2 Crl.F.\o. 15636 ()f 2013 as under .Section 3a(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968. The Court took cognizance of the narrated offences against both the a(:cused and numbered the case as C.C.No. 102 of 2013 and commenced the proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner, who is accused No.2 in the said calendar ca.se, is before this Court. 4 . Thus, in the light of the afore-mentionr:d factua-l scenario, t,:Le point that emerges for consideratiorL is Wherlher there exists any justifiable grounds to inuolce the pouter granted under Section a82 of Cr.P.C. and to quash the proceedings pend.ing agalttst the petitioner/ Acansed No.2 in C.C.iYo.102 of 2O13 on the file of the Court of Judu:ial Magistrate 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.O6.2(tl2 on receipt of reliable information regarding illegal distillation ald sale of ID liquor by some persons at Salthoshnagar Thanda of Bheemgal Mandal, the Excise Officials accompanied by the panch witnesses proceeded to the said place and traced the smell of ID liquor coming 3 D!.CSL, J Crl P No r5636 of 2013 from a house and, therefore, they entered into the said house and during search, they found two big mud vats buried underneath the ground, which were filled with black jaggery and alum for fermentation, which in turn 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 and 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 Kirala Store and though his involvement in the alleged crime is hil', he was falsely implicated in this case and, therefore, he approached this 4 DI.CSL, J Crl.l-\o. r5636 of 20 l3 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 even as per the version of the prosecution, the petitionerwas only selling black jaggery and alum in his shop and, therefore, continuation of proceedings against him should not be permitted.

8. On tl:Le other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the involvement 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 and, 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 Andhrar Pradesh in Memo No.47802 / Ex.III. 1 /2006- r3, dated 20. 12.2OlO. Placing reliance on the said memo, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that possession of black jaggery or 5 DI.CSL. J Crl.P No.15636 of 2013 sale of the same does not fall within the purview of Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968. For the pu{pose of analysis and continuation of discussion 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 1st 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 ald 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 'material' u/s. 2 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 has not been accepted by the Govemment."

10. Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 defines certain words. Sectio1r 2 (22A) of the Telangana Excise Act, 6 DT,CSL, J Crl.P.No. r5636 of 20l3 1968 says what the word "materia-l" includes. It lays down as under: " mat<zrial includes molasses, wash and such other subsl imces as the State Government ma1', by notifii ation, speciff;

11. Thus, it is clear that the word 'material' includes molasses, wash and such other substances as the State Govt:rnment may by notification, speciflr. By the Memo refered supra, the Government has decided not to impose restrictions on arry agricultural produce, particularil.on jaggey, black jaggery or rotten jiggery, in the list of materials used in the manufacture of ID liquor, as the Government opined that inclusion of the sarne may adversely affect the interest of the genuine ryots and the traders. It has clearly indicated that the proposal to include rotten jaggery under definition 'material' under Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968, therefore, was not accepted by the Government. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner, vrho is running a Genera-l Store, being in possession ,rf Jaggery, does not mean that he has 7 Dr.CSL. J CrI.P.No.15636 of 2013 committed an offence punishable under Section 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968.

12. Section 34 of the Telangana Excise Act lays down penalty 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 pulpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy. As earlier discussed, black jaggery does not fall within the term 'material', as enumerated under Section 2 (22A) 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 Telargana Prohibition Act, 1965, the version of the respondent is that the petitioner/Accused No.2 has committed offence punishable under Section 7-A r/w. Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995. Section 7-A of the Telangana 8 Dr.CSL, J Crl.P.No.15636 of 2013 Prohibition Act, 1995 prohibits production, manufacture, storage, possession, collection, purchase, sale and transportation of arrack. Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 envisages that the person, who contravenes the provision of Section 7-A of the Telalgana Prohibition Act, 1995 be punished with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend uptc eight years and with fine, which shall not be less than rupees two lalhs.

14. It is not the version of the Excise officia.ls, 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, hc will 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 hct, 1995.

15. Thus, in the light of afore-mentioned discussion that went on regarding the merits of the case and the legal I Dr.CSL, J Crl.P.No.15636 of 20I3 position involved, this Court unhesitatingly holds that taking cognizance against the petitioner by the Court is unjustifrable ald, 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 frle 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. DT. CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J Date: 04.O3.2022. NOTE : L.R. Copy be marked (B/o) Msr 10 Dr.CSL, J CrLP No.15636 of 2013 THE HOI'I,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUN,I,\LATHA (IRIMINAL PETITION No.15636 of 201.1

04.o3.2022 (Msr)