The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana,, through S.H O , Pielikuduru Police Station, Mahabubabad District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, high Court, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the F.l.R.No. '175 of 2OZS of Nellikudur Police Station, Mahabubabad District,, and quash the proceedings thereon l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of qll further proceedings in F.l.R. No. 175 of 2C25 ol Nellikudur Police Station, Mahabubabad District, pending disposal of the Criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri ARVAPALLI SHIVA SAI NATH, Advocate for the Petitioners and SRI JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Sole Respondent The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.'13'105 of 202> ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the 1. etitioners- accused Nos'1 to 3 seeking to quash the ;,rcceedings against them in FIR No.175 of 2025 on tie file of Nellikudur police station, Mahabubaba j tfistrict, registered for the offence under Section ll 1,e) cf the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 (Telangana Acloption Orders, 2015)

2. Heard Sri A.Shiva Sainath, learned corrir:;el for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramzt iar. l(larned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

3. The Sub-lnspector of Police, Nelliku J.lr Police Station, Mahabubabad Distrrct, charge sheetecl the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 along with otl-rt,rs alieging that they have committed the aforesaid offenr'e,. t3asing on the same, the learned Magistrate took (:c)gnrzance against the accused and numbered the case

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the sale, purchase and transportation of jaggt:ry rs not 2 prohibited under Law The jaggery is an agricultural produce. lt is not an intoxicant, nor a prohibited commodity. Therefore, no offence rs made out agarnst the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 and continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process of law and prayed to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that tl'rere are spectfic allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against them would come out only after conducting full-fledged trial before the trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

6. The Government of Andhra Pradesh vide Memo No.47802lEx.lll.1/2006-13, dated 20 12.2010 declined to impose any ban or restriction on Black Jaggery or Jaggery under the Telangana Excise Act and that possession of jaggery or sale of the same does not fall within the purview of Section 2 of the Telangana Excrse Act. The contents of the said Memo are extracted as I ! E u nder 3 ''Tlte atterttion of the Comntlssloner of Pt,..t)tbitiot) and Excist: A P Hyderabacl ts invited to the t .'!erence 1"1 cited. \\/ltcte t he has sent proposal for rtclusron of Rottet) Jaqgery under definition of material irr A P Exarst.- Act, 1968 so as to ensure effective contr()l )t lD arrack ctlrne at)(l lo tmprove Goventment Revenue Gover nrne-nt after careful examination of tl e n)altet hereb',/ dt:rtded that Black Jaggery or Ro et ,taggery c>r atty otl)et fonn of Jaggery are viewed 3s tgricLtlturc produ<:e or its bi-products and inclusiort of tltc :; )nte. in thc ltst of tLte ntitterials' used in the manufactttt,; c.f lD tiquor nay advcrsely affect the intercst of genLritrc t. .ts atld llte trader:; t letrce, it was decided not to impos ) restrlcttotl on anS, ;t.gsr.rculture produce, pafticularly on Jaq;,:ry Hence. tltc, proposal to tclude rotten jati 1,>ry unclcr definihort of 'material' u/s. 2 of A.P. Exase At t 1968 hits rtol been i)ccepted by the Government' 7 Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act, defines certain words Section 2 (22A) of the Telangana Excise Act says what the word "material" includes ,ruhich is as follows "naterial includes molasses, wash and subsfances as fhe Slafe Government may, L,1, specify,. ;t. ch other t t>tific'a tror t. B lt is clear that the word 'materiitl' includes molasses, wash and such other substances as the State Government may by notification specify. U r the Memo referred supra, the Government has dec ded not to itrrpose restrictions on any agricultural produce, particularly on jaggery, black jaggery or rotten jaggery, in 4 @ the list of materials used in the manufacture of lD liquor. as the Government opined that inclusion of the same may adversely affect the interest of the genuine ryots and the traders. lt has clearly indicated that the proposal to include rotten jaggery under defrnition 'material' under Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act, was not accepted by the Government. L sections 34 and 13(1Xf) of the Telangana Excise Act, lays down penalty for illegal import, exporl etc , and for manufacture 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 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 5 earlier discussed, jaggery does not fall witlrit-r the term material', as enumerated under Section 2 t'zA) of the Telangana Excise Act Thus, it is cle,rr that the petitroners, who are engaged in the business of purchase and sale of Jaggery, have not committecl the offence alleged against them 1O ln view of the above, this Court is of tht: considered view that the continuation of the proceedings :gatnst the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 amounts lo atruse of process of law

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is 'rllowed and the proceerlings against the petitioners-accLr:;e:d Nos.1 to 3 in FIR No 175 of 2025 on the file of Nelli<udur police station, lVlahabubabad District, are hereby quashed As a sequel, miscellaneous application; pending, if any, shall stand closed IiT)/- L VIJAYA LAXMI ASS(sirANr REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ \ SECTION OFFICER 't To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Thorrur, Mahabubatrad District

2. The Station House Officer, Nellikudur Police Station, Nerli<udur, Mahabubabad District 3 One CC to SRI ARVAPALLI SHIVA SAI NATH Advocatc [OP[JC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State rf Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] --=7

5. Two CD Copies VM/ABK fi- HIGH COURT DATED: 1O11012025 ORDER CRLP.No.13106 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ^,,-o("4 i)'"! Vr 6[rtE' '<2. a I 11 /') /, Ii ., 'i,i \ ? f tt0v 65 + .a s P4rcHEo t