The High Court · 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 qu6h C.O.R.No. 8512024 dated 29.03.2024 registered again_st the petitioner/accused No.2 before the Prohibition & Excise, Dhoolpet Excise Police Station, Hyderabad in the interest of justice. l.A. NO:2OFm25 . 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 stay all further proceedings including the investigation in C O.R.No. g1li124 dated 20.03.2024 registered against the petitioner/accused No.2 before the Prohibition & Excise, Dhoolpet Excise Police Station, Hyderabad This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimlnal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr DAMODAR MUNDRA, Advocate foT thE PEtitiONET ANd MT. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the followitg: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINALPETITION No.14700 of 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section S2g of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2025 (tor short ,BNSS,) the petitioner/accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.O.R.No.85 of 2OZ4 on the file of prohibition and Excise, Dhoolpet Excise Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 34 (e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 (for short 1he Act') and Rule 3 of the FUR (Regulation of use) Order, 1968.

2. Heard Mr.Damodar Mundra, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the order dated 04.0A.2022 in Crl.P.No.15636 of 2013.

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. -\ ./ 2 n ETD, J Crl.P 14700 2025

5. Perused the record. The ailegation against the petitioner 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 3a (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 jiggery. lt is pertinent to refer to section 2 (2zA) 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.47g02tEx.lll.1t2o06-13, dated - 'rrvrr--d- _,i 3 ETD, J Crl.P 14700 2025

20.12.2010, and the contents of the said memo are extracted below: ' "The aftention of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A-P., Hyderabad is invited to the reference lst cited, wherein he has senf proposal for inclusion of Rotten Jaggery under definition of material in A-P- Excise Act, 1968 so as to ensure effective control of lD arrack crime and to improve Government Revenue- 2. Government after careful examination of the matter, hereby decided that Black Jaggery or Rotten Jaggery or any other form of Jaggery are viewed as agriculture produce or its bi-products and inclusion of the same in the tist of the 'materials'used in the manufacture of lD liquor may adversely affect the interesf of genuine ryots and the traders- Hence, it was decided not to impose restriction on any agriculture produce, particularly on Jaggery- 3. Hence, the proposal to include rotten jaggery under definition of 'material' u/s. 2 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 has not been accepted by the Government."

8. Thus, a conjoint reading of Section 3a(e) of the Act, the definition of !'material" under Section 2(22A) of the Act, and the ( t, recitals of the Government Memo dated 20.12.2010, would \ lead to the conclusion that black jaggery is not a material as enumerated under Section 2(22A) of the Act. Hence, it cannot I 4 ETD, J Crl.P 14700 2025 be held that the petitioners have committed an offence as laid down under Section 3a(e) of the said Act.

9. similar matters have been disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this court in crl.P.No.15036 of 2013, wherein the proceedings against the petitioners therein were quashed, holding that taking cognizance for possession of black jaggery would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Apprying the same analogy, this Court is also of the opinion that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

10. ln view of the foregoing discussion, the criminat petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in c.o.R.No.85 of 2024 on the file of prohibition and Excise, Dhoolpet Excise Police Station, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ISTANT REGISTRAR i I I //TRUE COPY// ION OFFICER To, w

1. The Station House Officer, Prohibition & Excise Sub-lnspector, Dhoolpet Excise Station, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad

2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. One CC to Mr. DAMODAR MUNDRA, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies RC/PB HIGH COURT DATED: 1211112025 \ I ORDER CRLP.No.14700 ot 2025 y'i .,,\, i 3$ iir ix!$ . ,j.'..' . ., .,..:.a ,..,,,,, ,.'..,.-=......- Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Allowed. *