The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section S2g of Bharatiya Nagarik praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the. Memorand* J'aIounos of criminar petition, the High court may be preased to carr roirecoro-s ii'c"Jnnection with coR No.477 of i:i:,:il:'#,:iffili?:::H:;; il;; orri#r Erohib tion L*.i.u-st,tio, "no ...RespondenT/Complainant r.A. NO: 2 oF 2024 Petition under Section- _S2g of Bharatiya Nagarikn praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the Memorand^ oi'crornos of criminar petition, the Hrgh court may be preased.to-stay orriirr.*'!, irt"ceeo,ngs incruding arrest ot the petitioner in connection with c_oi ilii;f ;5r;pending on the fire of statron House officer, prohibition and Excise Siatiol, frJ!,l."grr. This Petition *iT on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of -tnu Grounds of criminar petition and upon i.rring arguments of Sri BALA MURALI Y, Advocate for the petitioner and sri. S"ureparti prashanth the Assistant Public Prosecutor, on beharf of the Respondent No.1, and None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER TIIE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No. 15102 oF 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSS) by petitioner / accused to quash the proceedings against him in COR No.477 of 2023 on the hle of Station House Officer' Prohibition and Excise Station, Huzurnagar'

2. Heard Mr. Y.Bala Murali, learned counsel for the petitioner ancl Mr. Surepalli Prashanth' learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State' Perused the material on rccord

3. A vehicle bearing No'TS 29 D 7732 was stopped at outskirts of Kethavarigudem (road connecting to Garidepa-lly to Kethavarigudem), in the vehicle four boxes of Jaggery were identilied and held. Accused failed to produce any documents ibr (sale of Jaggery)' On information from accused, authorities went to Chandra Shekhar Kirana store to enquire about the Jaggery order to one Athukuri Subba Rao. tt rvas itrformed ra Shekar did not place any 2 JAK. J oRLP 15t02 2024 order nor did he knew Athukuri Subba Rao. Authorities were of the opinion that J^ggery supplying is not fit for human and animal consumption. Samples Were drawn under cover of panchanama, a case was registered in crime and occurrence Report (ocR) bearin g No.4z7 of 2023, dated, 26.10.2023 at SHO, Huzurnagar under Section 7(A) r/w g(e) of TS Prohibition Act, 1995 and 34{e) of TS Excise Act, 1968. Show cause notice was served for confiscation of seized contraband and vehicle. petitioner did not offer any explanation. After 60 days (appeal time), seized contraband and vehicle were confiscated to the state. After confiscation they are liable for auction or destruction.

4. Auction order was issued on lg.Ol.2024, District Prohibition and Excise Oflicer, Suryapet gave a press note flor conducting the auction of vehicle and was auctionecl on 03.02-2024. pursualt to orders of this Court, an application lvas made by petitioner seeking for release of property i.e., gO Kgs. of white Jaggery. petitioner,s appeal to release rhe contraband rvas rejected as the contraband lvas confiscated to the state and no appeal was made by petitioner against confiscation order before the Appellate Authorit5r within time 3 JAK, J CRLP 15102-2024 i.e., 60 days and the same was ordered for destruction vide Crime No.83 12023 lA' dated 15'12 '2023' Destruction was ordered as the Chemical Examiner Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory' Warangal' opined that the said Jaggery is not suitable for human consumption but is for use as raw material in the manufacturing of illicitly distilled liquor' Challenging the order dated 25'06'2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise' Iilalgonda Division, this criminal petition is frled' 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that it was only on the order, Petitioner suPPlied Jaggery. That intercePted a authorities q'ho conducted person at Kethavarigudem Edge) bearing No'TS 29 D 7732 carrying 8O Kgs' Jaggery' lt further submitted that Jaggery confiscated is white Jaggery and can be consumed' It is also submitted that a copy or report of the Chemical Examiner i'e'' Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory' Warangal' was not supplied to petitioner' That non-supply of a copy to petitioner amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. That belore auction' authorities should have given an a route watch on the vehicle (Hero Maestro 1S 4 cRrP-r5r0211[j opportunity for petitioner to defend his case that whether .faSS;V was fit for human consumption. In the absence of supply of copy' the order of Deputy commissioner dated 25.06.2024 is not a valid order. 6. On the other harrd, Iearned counsel for respondent_ State submitted that in the order of Depuf Commissioner, a clear finding is given on the basis of report of Chemical Examiner that the Ja ggery is not fit for human consumption, and can only be used as raw material in the manufacturing of ilticitly distilled liquor. That on the basis of report, destruction orders were issued in Crime No.g3/2O231A, dated 15. 12.2023 ald the confiscated seized contraband q,as destroyed. That there was no appeal filed against the confiscation order. It is also submitted that show cause notice rvas issued for confiscation of the seized contraband and also the vehicle. That petitioner has not submitted any explanation. That show cause notice came to be served on 29.10.2023. It is also submitted in the absence of repiy to show cause notice, petitioner cannot now contend that the order is bad in law. _=_4@r 5 JAK, J cRLP_l5lo2 2024

7. Heard learned counsels' perused the record and considered the rival submissions' 8 Facts are not in dispute' Vehicle bearing No'TS 29 D 7732 when intercePted bY the personnel of Excise department at the outskirts of Kethavarigudem found four (4) boxes of Jaggery being carried' On questioning' accused failed to produce documents and informed the personnel that petitioner is tl.e owner of Jaggery and was transporting Jaggery to Chandra Shekar Kirana stores at Kethavarigudem' Ofhcers enquired with Chandra Shekar and werein'formedthathedidnotplaceanyordertoAthukuri Subba Rao i.e., petitioner herein' On further enquiry' authorities came to knorv that petitioner was supp\ring Jaggery to ID manufacturers as raw material i'e'' Jaggery which is not fit for human consumption or animal consumption. After taking samples under the cover of panchanama. case was registered as COR No'477 of 2023 ' Show cause notice was issued for conhscation of seized Joggery and vehicle, it was served on 29 'tO '2023' there was no reply to show cause notice' After appeal time' seDed Jaggery and vehicle o'ere conhscated to the state and orders 6 JAK, J CRLP t5102 2024 of auction/destruction were issued, vehicle was auctioned on O3.O2.2O24. After the auction of vehicle, this Court in W.P.No.202 of 2O24 passed an order dated 0g.02 .2024. Pursuant to the orders in writ petition, the application/representation filed by petitioner was rejected on ttle ground that seized contraband was confiscated to the state and as no appeal was preferred against the confrscation order within time, the same rvas ordered for destruction. On the basis of the report of Chemical Examiner, the state SHO destroyed the conliscated Ja ggery in presence of District Prohibition and Excise Officer.

9. The contention is Jaggery has not been destroyed and is still lying with the authorities. Statement made across the Bar is contrary to what is recorded in the order dated 25.06.2024. It is rrue that a copy of the report of Chemical Examiner has to be supplied and authorities cannot unilaterally decide without an opportunity. Not supplying a copy of Chemical Exarniner report is violation of principtes of natural justice. But fact remains that petitioner has not responded to show cause notice and has not frled an appeal against the order of conliscation. 7 IAK, J CRLP t5102 2024

10. It is contended that in the order dated 25'06'2024' itis not reflected whether the Jaggery is black or white' that Jaggery seized and confiscated was white Jaggery' ht for human consumption. In view of the destruction orders and proceedings dated O4.01.2O24 tefetred in the order of Deputy Commissioner, this Court is not inclined to delve into the aspect whether it is black or white Jaggery' In the bill dated 23.08.2023, it is not reflected whether Jaggery purchased is white or black and there is no signature on the bill'

11. It is the duty of petitioner to respond to show cause notice of con{iscation order dated 26'10'2023, served on the accused on 29.IO.2O23 to defend his case' Petitioner offered no explarlation. Conhscation order rn'as issued, confiscating the Jaggery and vehicle under Section 13 of T'S'Probihition Act, 1995 and under Section 46 of T'S trxcise Act, 1968' No appeal was filed against the confiscation order' After appeal time (60 days), auction order was issued on 19 'Ol'2O24' A Press note for conduct of auction of vehicle was issued and the vehicle was auctioned on 03.O2.2024. It is observed from the order of Deputy Commissioner that the Jaggery was ) _) E JAK. J cntp-tstoz-zoi+ destroyed on O4.O1.2O24 much prior to the order of writ petition dared 0g.02.2024 It is trite to note that a writ petition bearing W. p.No.202 of 2024 was preferred, the High Court dir.ected to approach the authorities to make an aPPlication unCer Scction 46 cf T.S.Excise Act. As stated supra, Jeegery was destroyed on 04.01.2024 itserf. 12. Vehicle is auctioned, Jag5lery is destroyed as per the contents of order dated 25.06 .2024, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief in the present criminal petition as it is devoid of merits.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal petition IS dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall starrd closed \ To, //TRUE COPYII Sd/- B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SEC N OFFICER

1. The Deputy Commissioner prohibition and Excise, Nalgonda Division_ 2. The S.H.O HUzarnagar, Suryapet District. 3. One CC to SRt BALA tVtURALt y, Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CCs to Public prosecutor, The HighCourt for the State Of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copres I Anvlgh HIGH COURT DATED:19 tO3l2O25 ORDER CRLP.No'15102 ol2O24 DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION ,,?l ' (, (,- /,t ?,'?// _{ I .'. 2[ $P ?ut /.4, ;r 7'ic'.;' '--:=:a;-' .i /,,/ -t i' -'-./'