Prosecutor High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri ARVAPALLI sHtvA sAl NATH, Advocate for the Petitioner and sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of thE sole Respondent- The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SF:I}ENTAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.1 5870 of 2025 Betrvecn: Mr.Lakavath Mangilal zrnd another Date: o2' 72'2025 AND ...petitioners The State of Telangana, through S.H.O_, Kothagudem Prohibition &. Dxcrse Star ion, Bhadradri Kothagudern District, represented by its public prosecutor, High Court for thc Statc of .l.e langana, at Hyderabad. ..respondent ORDER This Criminal Petition has been frled s::,:kir-rg to qr:ash ttre proceedings in C.O.R_No.62 of 2025. on the file of Kothagudem Prohibition &, Excise Star on, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, wherein the petitio'r,:r/ accused is arrayed as accused, for the offences ptrrrishzrble under Section 34(e) of the T.S Excise Act, 1968.

2. Heard Mr.A.Shiva Sainath, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V. Jithendar Rao leetr r:.ed Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondenL I c,. 1 State. , I

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the orders passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.15636 of 20 13 dated O4.O3.2022- 4. Learned Additional hrbiic Prosecutor has also reiterated the subrnission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. In view of the said subrnission, as the matter is sqr-rarely covered by the order in the above Criminal Petition, this criminal petition is allowed in terms of the above said order, adopting the reasoning contained therein. The proceedings against the petitioners / accused in C.O.R.No.62 of 2025, on the file of Kothagudem Prohibition & Excise Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, are hereby quashed.

6. Accordingly, the Crirninal Petition is a_llowed. Pending miscellaleotts applications, if any, shall stand closed. \ To, Sd/- A. JAYASREE SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER

1. The I Addl. Judicial lvlagistrate of First Class, Kothagudem 2. The Station House Officer, Proh. & Excise Station, Kothagudem 3. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad 4. One CC to SRI ARVAPALLI SHIVA SAI NATH Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies (our) TPK Note: Enclosed a copy of the Order dated 04.03.2022 in Crl.P. No. 15636 of 2013. '=-a HIGH COURT DATE D:0 211212025 ORDER CRLP.No.15870 ot 2025 !tit .:.i7;4 t' It 1 2 * a igqa6,i-ri CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED (tr lo \r-. "a) THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAIfl,R SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15636 of 2013 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, who is representing the respondent.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking the Court to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2 in C.C.No. IO2 of 2013, which is pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of Fiist Class at Armoor, Nizamabad Distnct.

3. Through the material produced, what could be culminated and gathered by this Court is, that the Sub Inspector of Police for Prohibition and Excise, Bheemgal, charge sheeted the petitioner and another atleging that they committed offence punishable under Section 7-A t/w. Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 as well 2 D,-CSL, J ( rl ? No 15636 of2013 ,1 t: as under Section 34(e) of the Telangana Excrsc Act, 1968. The Court took cognizance of the narrated olf-rrces agarnst both the accused and numbered the case as rl.C.No.102 of 2013 and commenr:ed the proceedings. Ag1 'rcved by the same, the petitioner, who is accused No.2 rn the said calendar case, is before this Court.

4. Thus, in the light of the afore-menlirrrr:d factual scenario, the point that emerges for considerat on is: Whether there eists any justifiable gro: t tds tut inuoke the pouer granted under Section t []2 ot Cr.P.C. and to quash the proceedings ptt nCingt against the petitioner/ Accused -Akr ? irt C.C.No.LO2 of 2O13 on the file of the (\ ur1 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Annoor

5. The case ofthe respondent/ complainanT . as could be perceived through the contents of the charge s rr:et, is that on 21.06.2012 on receipt of reliable inforrnatir n regarding illegal distillation and sale of ID liquor by somr l)ersons at Santhoshnagar Thanda of Bheemgal Mandal. the Excise Officials accompanied by the par-rch witnesses proceeded to the said place ald traced the smell of ID liq ror coming 3 -Dr.CSL, J Crl.P No.15636 of 2013 from a house and, therefore, they entered into the said house and during search, they found two big mud vats buried underneath the ground, which were hlled with black j"ggery and alum for fermentation, which in turn would be used for distillation of ID liquor- On enquiry, the person present therein revealed his identity particulars. The said person further revealed that he is manufacturing and selling ID liquor for his livelihood and he is purchasing raw material used for distillation of ID liquor i.e., black jaggery from I he petitioner herein.

6. Thus, the person from whose possession, the fermented jaggery was seized ald the person 'from whom the black jaggery was purchased by the said person are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 and 2, respectively.

7. Making his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2, is running a Kirana Store and though his involvement in the aileged crime is 'nil', he was falsely implicated in this case ald, therefore, he approached this I i i 4 Dr CSL, J ( .l !'j No.I 5636 of 20 I3 Court seeking to quash the proceedings inirizLted against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner furth c: corrtended that selling of black jrggery and alum by it:relf is not an offence and even as per the version of the prcs,-.cution, the petitionr:r rvas only selling black jaggery and :rluni in his shop and, therefore, continuation of proceecli;-rgs agatnst him should not be permitted.

8. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the involver-n --nt ol the petitioner/Accused No.2 is found and thorrgh lte rvas prohibited to sell the materia-I that i,, used in manufacturing of ID liquor, he was selling th I sanre and, therefore, he is liable for prosecution.

9. During the course of hearing, learned corrrLsel fbr the petitioner brought to the notice of this (lour r., the proceedings issued by the Government of And tra Pradesh in Memo No.478O2lEx.IIl.rl2006-13, dated )0.12.2010. Placing reliance on the said memo, learned cot trsel [or the petitioner contended that possession of black .aggery or 5 Dr.CSL, J crl.P.No.15635 0f 20 r3 sale of the same does not fall within the purview of Section 2 of the Telangara Excise Act, 1968. For the purpose of analysrs and continuation of discussion in a fruitful manner, the contents of the said memo, are extracted as under: 'The attention of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A.P., Hyderabad is invited to the reference 1"t cited, wherein he has sent proposal for inclusion of Rotten Jaggery under dehnition of material in A.P. Excise Act, 1968 so as to ensure effective control of ID 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 agricu.lture produce or its bi-products and inclusion of the same in the list of the 'materia-ls' used in the manufacture of ID'liquor may adversely affect thc interest 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' uls- 2 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 has not been accepted by the Government." iO. Section 2 of t!l.e Telangala Excise Act, 1968 dehnes certain words. Section 2 l22Al of the Telangana Excise Act, I l I i 6 Dr (lSI-, J i: :1 r No 15636 ol20l3 ': 1968 says what the word "material,, includes. It lavs down as under "mateial' includes molasses, wash ancl srrr.l: othr:r subslJnccs as the State Govcrnment r. ]. D) notification, specify; 1 1. Thus, it is clear that the word .matt:r ird, ir.rcludes molasses, wash and such other substancr:s as thc State Gr>vernment may by notification, spe,:i$r. By the Memo referred supra, the Government has rlecided not to impose restrictions on any agricultur rl pr-odur_:r:, particularly on jaggey, black jaggery or rotten -ii3E;ery. in the Iist of materials used in the manufacture of I ) iiquor, as the Government opined that inclusion oi thr .;ame may adversely affect the interest of the genuine r)/ rts ar-rd tl.rc traders. It has clearly indicated that the proposi I to inclucle rotten jaggery under definition ,material, under jt:ction 2 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968, thereforc uras not accepted by the Government. Thus, it is cle,rr that the petitioner, who is running a General Store being possession of Jaggery, does not mean thz t he has 1n a- I I i 1 I I I i I : 7 Dr-CSL, J Crl.P-No.15636 of 20 r3 committed an offence punishable under Section 34(e) of the Telalgana Excise Act, i 968. L2. Section 34 of the Telangana Excise Act lays down penalty for illegal import, export etc. of the prohibited material mentioned therein without any license or permit' Section 34(e) penalizes the use, keeping in possession any material, stills, utensils, implements or apparatus whatsoever for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicalt other than toddy. As earlier discussed, black j"ggery does not fall within the term 'material', as enumerated under Section 2 (22A1 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioner has committed an offence as laid down under Section 34(e) of the sard Act.

13. Coming to the contents of Telangarta Prohibition Act, 1965, the version of the respondent is that the petitioner/Accused No.2 has committed offence punishable under Sectio n 7 -A r /w. Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995. Section 7-A of the Telangana 8 DT.CSL, J (.1.P No.I 5636 oI20 t3 Prohibition Act, 1995 prohibits production, rrLanufacture, storage, possession, collection, purchase, sale and transportation of arrack. section g(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 envisages that the p:rson, rvho contravenes the provision of Section 7,A of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 be punished with imprisorrment for a term, which shall not be less than one year, brLt which may extend upto eight years and with fine, which shall not be less than rupees two lakhs. 14- It is not the version of the Excise officials oven as per the contents of the charge sheet, that the petitioner was found in the process of producing, malufacturirLg, storing, possessing, collecting, selling or transport:ng arrack. Therefore, he will not fall within the ambit of Se c:ion 7_A of the Telalgana prohibition Act, 1995, for which tunishment is prescribed under Section g(e) of the ,lelangana Prohibition Act, 1995. 1 5. Thus, in the light of aJore-mentioned disc :r;sion that went on regarding the merits of the case an,i the legal 9 - Di.CSL, J Crl.P-No.I5636 of 2013 x position involved, this Court unhesitatingly holds that taking cognizance against the petitioner by the Court is unjustifiable and, therefore, it amounts to abuse of process of law.

76. Resultantly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings that are pending against the petitioner/ Accused No. 2 in C.C.No.102 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor, are hereby quashed. 1,7. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DT. CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J Date: 04.O3.2022 NOTE : L.R. Copy be marked (B/o) Msr