The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, through S.H.O , Maripeda police Station, Ir.4ahabubabad District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. ...RespondenUComplainant Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to call for the records relating to the F.l.R.No.169 of 2O2S on the file of the Maripeda Police Station, Mahabubabad District, and quash the same thereon. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 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.l.R.No.169 of 2025 on the file of the Maripeda Poiice 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 tvlr. A. Shiva Sainath, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER '1.-- .1; --}.,'* THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA E,l:Vl EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14177 of 20 15 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Sectiorr 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 't] ISS') by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 seeking to quash t- ., proceedings against them in FIR No 169 of 2025 on the file of l/ lripeda Police Station, Mahabubabad District, registered for the : Ieged offence punishable under Section 34 (e) of the Telangar a Excise Act, 1968 (for short 'the Acl').

2. Heard Mr.A.Shiva Sainath, learned co.t rsel for the petitioners and lv'ir.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, lear red Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners subrr tted that the matter is squarely covered by the order dated t4.O3.2022 in Crl.P.No.1 5636 of 201 3.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also I ubmitted that the issue in the present criminal petition is square y covered by the earlier order in the above criminal petition. I t \ 2 ETD, J CrLP 14177 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 jaggery. lt is pertinent to refer to Section 2 (22A) of the Act reads as under: "material' includes molasses, wash and such other substances as the State Government may, by notifi cation, specify"; 7 Further, proceedings were issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in Memo No.47802/Ex.lll.1/2006-13, dated 3 ETD, J Ctl.I' 14171 2025

20.12.2010, and the contents of the said memo tre extracted "The attention of the Commissio't Prohibition and Excise, A.P., Hydere I invited to the reference 1st cited, wher has senf proposal for inclusion of Jaggery under definition of material it Excise Act, 7968 so as to ensure ef control of lD arrack crime and to i1 Government Revenue.

2. Government after careful examinal the matter, hereby decided that Black .'i or Roften Jaggery or any other f't Jaggery are viewed as agriculture prod its bi-products and inclusion of the sam:- list of the 'materials' used in the manul of lD liquor may adversely affect the int) genuine ryots and the traders. Hence, decided not to impose restriction o, agriculture produce, particularly on Jag11 3. Hence, the proposal to include jaggery under definition of 'material' u,/: A.P. Excise Act, 1968 has not been a<:r by the Government." )r of ad is :in he lotte n A.P. ective on of tce or in the rcture esf of f was 'ry. ,otten .2of o Thus, a conjoint reading of Section 34(e) of I re Act, the definition of "material" under Section 2(22A) of the I ct, and the recitals of the Government Memo daled 20.12.',1 '10, would lead to the conclusion that black jaggery is not a naterial as enumerated under Section 2(22A) of the Act. Hen: r, it cannot I t i \ 4 ETD, J Crl.P 141'17 2O)5 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, 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 to 5 in FIR No.169 of 2025 on the file of Maripeda Police Station, Mahabubabad District, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. i/TRUE COPY// SdI P.PONAM KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR @ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3

4. 5. SA/PR The Judicial First Class llagiskate at Thorrur. The Station House Officer, Police Station Maripeda, Mahabubabad District Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyd erabad.(OUT) One CC to Mr. A. Shiva Sainath, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copiesw I :.1-=,9 HIGH COURT DATED:0311112025 ORDER CRLP.No.14177 of 2025 ,:f' . t, < tt. ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION \?- :>.._-. -,, :'. ,." \ )\ I L ,,/ . t.\ ', li ;7