The High Court · 2025

.4^g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandrm^ot.crounos-"i c"ri,ii"ii i_"tit1o1,ihe uigh courimav be preased to quash c o.R. No rooTzirzl'orr"r'\7.10.2022 fired asainst the E::["""3[:ffi::'fii.]i;3,?""'" sub rnspecror, Dhoorpet p,.or'lliion'i,iJ'E"*"i,. l.A. NO:2 OF 2022 Petition under section -482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandrm or ciou-nas-"i clri,i,ili,petition, the High cor.t rrv be pteased to stav a, rrr*rer procee;i.;; ;#i;;fu the investisation and arrest of the petitioner in c.o.R r.i"- ie;;i;i;"0""il0'trr..,0., 022 tited against the p etitio n e r/a ccused N o. 2 oeto re p ro niol.tio-n- ;i?r; Excise Station, Hva.rrOro tse Sub lnspector, Dhoolpet This petition comin G ro u n d s or c ri m r n a i p e il :J : j:' T: H'ilr;l :l Mundra, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri tvti. Viret anrnOa Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents. ;""T ll; ff i,,,i"" l,"J : I j:t The Court made the following: ORDER TIIE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMIN AL PF"TITION No. 10060 of2OZL ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,lgT3(forshort,.Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner/accused No'2, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in COR No'166 of 2022 on the frle oftheProhibitionandExcise,DhoolpetExcisestation,for the offences punishable under Section 34(a) r/w 37(A)(99) and42 of the Telangana Excise Act' 1968'

2. Heard Mr. Damodar Mundra' learled counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy' learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent Nos'1 and 2'

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised in this criminal petition is squarely covered by the order dated 07-03'2025 passed by this Court in Crirninal Petition No.3315 of 2025 and order dated 18'06'2025 in Criminal Petition No'4022 of 2O25 Learned counsel Placed 2 the copy of the above said orders by duly serving upon the learned Assistant public prosecutor. 4 Learned Assistant public prosecutor has not disputed the same.

5. Taf|n-e into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the order dated 07.O3.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal petition No.3315 of 2025 and order dared 1g.06.2025 in Criminal petition No.4022 of 2025, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings against the petitioner in COR No.l66 of 2022 on the file of the prohibition and Excise, Dhoolpet Excise Station, are liable to be quashed. 6' Accordingly, the criminar petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in coR No. 166 of 2022 on the file of the prohibition and Excise, Dhoolpet Excise Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 34(a) r/w 37(A)(gg) and 42 of the Terangana Excise Act, 1968, are hereby quashed. t I I i i I f i I I ! I : i l , , I I w .., ,../ // ,., ./ ,/ / t I 3 Pending miscellaneous applications' if any' shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD,ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER l To, I I I

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hyderabad 2. The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Dhoolpet Excise Station, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.IOUT]

4. One CC to Sri Damodar Mundra, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies VTVPSI- i l 'I -l l HIGH COURT DATED: 0210912025 ORDER CRLP.No.10060 o12022 a { I, D 0? 25 '{ \!-' ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION i I ! I 1nFr I I ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.4022 OF 2025 This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 o'f Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.45 of 2024, on the file of the learned XVll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cyberabad at [Vlaheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District

2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4 in the Calendar Case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3a(1)(ii) and 34(2) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968 3 Heard l\rlr. Damodar lVlundra, learned counsel for the petitioner and [\/r.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is engaged in the business of selling black jaggery powder and alum, as well as related materials, which are allegedly used in the manufacture of illicifly distilled liquor. lt is further alleged that he supplies these materials to customers upon receiving orders. 7 NTlt.l (lrll'.N{,.4022-2015 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that none of the 5 prosecution,s evidence demonstrates the petitioner's involvement in the b actual distillation of illicit liquor. He argues that merely conducting business in black jaggery powder and alum does not' in itself, warrant prosecution. Furthermore, he submits that this Court, by order dated 06-02.2025inCriminalPetitionNo.l664of2025,consideredasimilar issueandconcludedthat,intheabsenceofanyevidenceshowingthat the petitioners processed intoxicating substances, they cannot be held liable for any offence under the Excise Act Consequently, the proceedings were quashed. As the issue contested in the present petitionisdirectlycoveredbytheearlierjudgment,learnedcounsel praysforthesamereliefandrequeststhatthecurrentproceedingsbe quashed.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly concedes that this aspect has already been considered and decided by this Court in the aforementioned criminal petition, and that the legal proposition established therein is directly applicable to the present case' T.lhavereviewedthematerialsonrecordandcarefullyconsidered the submissions made by learned counsel for both parties' s J Nl RJ Crl.P.N().4022 2025 B. A coordinate bench of this Court, in Criminal Petition No. 1664 of 2025, examined the A/emo issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh (No. 478021Ex.111 112006-13, dated 20.12.2010), wherein the request to impose a ban or restriction on the possession or sale of black jaggery or jaggery under Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act was declined. After considering the purport of Section 2(22A), Sections 34, 13(1)(f), and 42(c) of the Telangana Excise Act, the Court held that engaging in the business of purchasing or selling jaggery does not + constitute an offence. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: "Sections 3a and 13(1)(f) of the Telangana Excise Act, lays down penalty for illegal import, export etc., and for manufacture of the prohibited material mentioned therein without any license or permit. Sectron 34€ penalizes the use, keeping in possession any material, stills, utensils, implements or apparatus wh.atsoever 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 earlier discussed, jaggery does not fall within the term 'material', as enumerated under Section 2 (22A) of the Telangana Excise Act. Thus, it is clears that the petitioners, who are engaged in the business of purchase and sale of jaggery, have not committed the offences alleged against them. ln view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 5 amounts to abuse of process of law." 4 N'IR,I a-r1I'j.No.4022 2021 !*

9. In light of the settled legal position discussed above, and given that the sole allegation against the petitioner is his involvement in the business of black jaggery powder, it is clear that allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the judicial process. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioner (Accused No. 4) in C.C. No. 45 of 2024, pending before the XVII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cyberabad at Maheshwaram, R.R. District, are liable to be quashed. Ordered accordingly.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4 in C.C.No.45 of 2024 on the file of the XVll Additional Judicial l\rlagistrate of First Class, Cyberabad at Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Date:18.06.2025 Ccm/svl N.TUKARAMJI, J i i I I I I