The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri ARVAPALLI SHIVA SAI NATH ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla the Addl. Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PE ITION No.12744 of 2025 ORDER. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in F.l.R.No.87 of 2025 on the file of Nellikudur Police Station, Mahabubabad 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 daled 04.03.2022 in Crl.P.No.15636 of 2013 and enclosed a copy of the said order

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the issue irr the present criminal petition is squarely covered by the earlier order in the above criminal petition. _..; ) LTD.J Ctl.P 12744 2025

5. Perused the record. The allegation against the petitioners is that they were found in possession of black jaggery. lt is alleged that the said black jaggery is used as a material in the preparation of lD liquor, and that the petitioners have been selling it to earn good returns, as it is used in the manufacture of such liquor. An FIR has been registered under Section 34 (e) of the Act, which prescribes penalties for the illegal import, export, etc., of prohibited materials mentioned therein, without any license or permit. Specifically, Section 34(e) of the Act penalizes the use and possession of any materials, stills, utensils, implements, or apparatus whatsoever for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy.

6. The material alleged to have been seized herein is black jiggery. lt is pertinent to refer to Section 2 (224) of the Act reads as under: "material' includes molasses, wash and such other substances as the State Government may, by notification, specify"; 7 Further, proceedings were issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in lVtemo No.47802lEx.lll.1/2006-13, dated

20.12.2010, and the contents of the said memo are extracted below: 3 ETD. J Crl.P l2'7 44 2025 ''The aftention of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A.P., Hyderabad is invited to the reference 1st cited, wherein he has sent pr<>posal for inclusion of Rotten Jaggery under definition of material in A.P. Excise Act, 1968 so as lo ensure effective control of lD arrack crime and to ifitprove 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 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 Govern ment. " B. Thus, a conjoint reading of Section 34(e) of the Act, the definition of "material" under Section 2(22A) of the Act, and the recitals of the Government Memo dated 20.12.2010, would lead to the conclusion that black jaggery is not a material as enumerated under Section 2(224) of the Act. Hence, it cannot 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.15636 of 2013, wherein the proceedings against the petitioner therein were quashed, 4 E'TD, J CILP 12744 2025 n ! holding that taking cognizance for possession of black jaggery would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Applying the same analogy, this Court is also of the opinion that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

10. ln view of the foregoing discussion, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in F.l.R.No.B7 ot 2025 on the file of Nellikudur Police Station, Mahabubabad District, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- B.G. VYJAYANTHI ANT REGISTRAR \ S CTION OFFICER To' 1 . The SHO Nellikudur Police Station Mahabubad District' 2. One CC to SRl. ARVAPALLI SHIVA SAI NATH Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OUT] n- Two CD CoPies n'y.,. PK\I'SI- l) - e S ra;^.\, 'o^\ ,r.r^-\._ 2 \\ t.) 29r[I 6 i\) c. itsl ':-)y' HIGH COURT DATED:26lOgl202s ALLOWED CRLP.No.12744 of 2025 .lf, 1e T%