Criminal Petition No. 14170 of 2025 · The High Court · 2025

The State o_f Telangana, through S.H.O., Maripeda Police Station, Mahabubabad District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hvderabad. ... 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.I.R.No. 297 of 2024 on the file of the Maripeda Police Station, Mahabubabad District, and quash the same thereon, and to grant iuch other relief or reliefs as this Honbte Court deems fit and proper if, the circumstances of the case. I.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 all further proceedings in F.I.R.No.297 of 2024 on the file of the Maripeda Police Station, Mahabubabad District, pending disposal of thgCriminal 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 Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behatf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIM!NAL PETITION No.1417O ot 2O25 o This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in FIR No.297 of 2024 on the file of Maripeda Police Station, Mahabubabad District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 34 (e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act').

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-O3.2022 in Crl.P.No. 1 5636 of 201 3.

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. / ,| ETD, J Crl.P_l4l7o]025

5. Perused the record. The allegation against the petitioners is that they were found in possession of brack 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 penarties for the iilegar import, export, etc., of prohibited materiars mentioned therein, without any license or permit' specificatty, section 34(e) of the Act penalizes the use and possession of any materiars, stiils, utensirs, imprements, or apparatus whatsoever for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy. 6' The materiar areged to have been seized nerdin is brack jaggery. lt is pertinent to r_,br to Section 2 (22A) of the Act reads as under: ',material,includes ;:l;i:m::;:#3erzffi?t,;:iiH:,:,i? ffiolassoo ti,^_L .r 7' Furfier, proceedings nn\rra pradesh in Memo No-47802te).tu.1- were issued by the Government of t2oo6-13, dated 3 ETD, J Crl.P l4l'10 2O25

20.12.2010, and the contents of the said memo are extracted below: 'lD "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 J;;g;i under definition of mateiat in A'P' -iic"iie' nct, 1968 so as to ensure effective anack crime and to improve Iii,t.t of Govemment Revenue' 2. Govern ment after careful examination of the matter' herebY decided that gack Jaggery or any other form of or Roften Jaggery Jaggery are viewed as agicultu re Produce or and inclusion of the same in the lisf of the 'mateials' used inthe manufacture the interest of of lD liquor maY adve rselY affect Hence, it was ryots and the taders. n on any genutne b imP decided agiculture Produce' Pa 3. Hence, the ProPosal :,;"*;::';l:!{,:: A b ose reslnctio rficutatlY on Jaggery' to include rotten 'matei al' u/s. 2of not been accePted y the Government'

8. Thus' a conioint reading of Secti on 34(e) of the Act' the definition of "mate rial" under Section 2(22\)of the Act' and the recitals of the Government Memo dated 2Oj22O10, would lead to the conctusion that black iaggery is not a material as enumerated under Section ZQ}A) of the Act' Hence' it cannot 4 ETD, J Crl.P l4l,7o 2025 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.1s636 of 2013, wherein the proceedings against the petitioner therein were quashed, holding that taking cognizance for possession of brack 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 to 7 in FIR No.297 of 2024 on the fire of Maripeda police Station, Mahabubabad District, are hereby quashed. $ As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. / /TRUECOPY / / SD/. K.BHAVAN! SWAMY ASSTSTANT REGISTRAR a 6 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Thorrur 2. The Station House Officer, Maripecla Police Station, Mahabubabad. 3. One CC to Sri Arvapalli Shiva Sai Nath, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies. JCK/PSL YV _11, I ,l HIGH COURT DATED:O3 /7t12g2, ORDER CRLp.No.I4770 of 2025 Allowing the Criminal peHdon. b ."\frA ft'r'z Yr/ * s '" tt E .! i,,.. {/: (- ') -l 17 Et[ &f : ir -:i'4 ..i'.ii' .r .'i' ,,'|r, :^;;:-i"' t) t