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 quash the proceedings in C.C.No.154 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Khanapur against the petitioner. t.A. NO: 10F 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that rn the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No. 154 of 2025 on the ftle of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at KhanaPur. This Petition coming on for hearrng, upon perusing the i/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C.SHARAN REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E. Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON,BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE,v I EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14801 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is fiied under Section t1B Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ,BN[ S') by the petitioner-accused No.3 seeking to quash the lroceedings against him in C.C.No.154 of 2025 on the file ol :he learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Khanapur, regisr red for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 7(F ) read with Section B(e) of the Telangana Prohibition and Exci; I Act, .19g5 (for short'the Act') and 34(e) of the Telangana Excis: Act, 1968 (for short 'the Excise Act').

2. Heard Mr. C.Sharan Reddy, Iearned counr el for the petitioner and Mr. E.Ganesh, learned Assistant publi: prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 -State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted tha the matter is squarely covered by the order dated 04 ( 3.2022 in Crl.P.No.15636 of 2013 1 I ) ETD, J crlp 14801 2025 \

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also submitted that the issue in the present criminal petition is squarely covered by the earlier order in the above criminal petiticn.

5. Perused the record. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has sold black jaggery and alum to accused No 2, who in turn sold the same to accused No.1 , who has indulged in preparation of l.D. liquor. An FIR has been registered under Sections 7(A) read with Section B(e) of the Act and 34(e) of the Excise Act. Section 7(A) of the Act prohibits production' manufacture, storage, possession, collection, purchase' sale and transportation of arrack. Section 8(e) of the Act envisages that the person who contravenes the provision of Section 7-A of the Act be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend up to eight years and with fine, which shall not be less than iupees two lakhs Section 34 (e) of the Excise Act, prescribes penalties for the illegal import' export, etc., of prohibited materials mentioned therein, without an4license or permit. Specifically, the said Section penalizes the \ use ind possession of any materials, stills, utensils, implements' 3 F]TD, J crlp l{801 2025 or apparatus whatsoever for the purpose of manr acturing any intoxicant other than toddy.

6. The material alleged to have been seized l-r rein is black jaggery' lt is pertinent to refer to section 2 (22A) of r re Act reads as under "material' includes molasses, wash and su substances as the State Government notifi cation, specify"; :h other nay, by 7 . Further, proceedings were issued by the Go, ernment of Andhra Pradesh in Memo No.47802lEx.lll.1t2OC(_13, dated 20.12.2010, and the contents of the said memo €r ) extracted below: "The attention of the Commissione, of Prohibition and Excise, A.p., Hyderab:rr / is invited to the reference 1st cited, where,r he has sent proposal for inclusion of R.tei Jaggery under definition of material in , t.p. Excise Act, 1g68 so as to ensure effec,ive control of lD arrack crime and to imp,r.tve Government Revenue. 2. Government after careful examinatior of the matter, hereby decided that Black Jaggery or Rotten Jaggery or any otner rcii of Jaggery are viewed as agriculture product or its bi-products and inclusion of the same ir, ,he list of the 'materials' used in the manufacl tre of lD liquor may adversely affect the interes of genuine ryots and the traders. Hence. it v.as t 4 ETD. J crtp 11801 2025 4 decided not to impose restriction on any agriculture produce, pafticularly on Jaggery. 3. Hence, the proposal to include rotten jaggery under definition of 'mate!:al' u/s. 2 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 has not been accepted by the Government." B. Thus, a conjoint reading of Section 34(e) of the Excise Act, the definition of "material" under Section 2(22A) of lhe Acl' and the recitals of the Government Memo daled 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 be held that the petitioner has committed an offence as laid down under Section 34(e) of the Excise Act' As per the charge sheet, it is not the version of the Excise Officials that the petitioner was found in the process of producing, manufacturing, storing, possessing, collecting, selling or transporting arrack. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petitionei has committed offences as laid down under Sections 7-A of the Act, for which punishment is prescribed under Section 8(e) of the 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 5 ETD. J crlp 14801_2025 proceedings against the petitioner therein were quashed, holding that taking cognizance for possession of blz r k jaggery and alum would am<.runt to an abuse of the proce,r s of law. Applying the same analogy, this Court is also of t.r : opinion that the continuation of proceedings against the :etitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

10. ln view of the foregoing discussion, the Crimir i I Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitione r accused No.3 in C.C.No.154 of 2025 on the file of the learner Judicial First Class Magistrate at Khanapur, are hereby quasit 'A As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pendir 3, if any, shall stand closed. D/-PIONNAKRISHNA SIST \NT REGIST -r //TRUE COPY// Sil CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Khanpur. 2. One CC to SRI C.SHARAN REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangar r, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)

4. The Prohibition and Excise Sub-lnspector,, Prohibition and :xcise Station, Nirmal.

6. Two CD Copies CHRK/PSt \q- HIGH COURT DATED:1311112025 ORDER CRLP.No.14801 ot 2025 .,E- ir r ,l r.r ':. l.' ;l l $;t ?[6 -l' .- i''{i ' \ 2 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED. () c*reA v1'. )r<rso l-J \'