The High Court · 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SIU'ENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.15868 of 2025 Betrveen: Mr.Banoth Balu Date: O2.12.2025 AND petitione r The State of Tclangana, through S.H.O., Yellandu Prohibition & Excise Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. responden t ORDER This Crirninal Petition has been filcd sr:el<irg lo .lLrash the proceedings in C.O.R.No.123 of 2a?. ,, cttt thc file o[ Yellandu Prohibition & Excise Sta t ir,n, Bhaclradri Kothagudem District, wherein the petiti rner/accuscd is arrayed as accused, for the offences pr rnishable under Section 34(e) of the T.S. Excise Act, 1968.

2. Heard Mr.A.Shiva Sainath, learned lounsel for the petitioner and Mr.V, Jithendar Rao, leiu.ned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent Irlo. 1 State. , I 2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner subrnitted that the matter is squarely covered by the orders passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.15636 of 20 13 dated 04.O3.2O22. 4. Learned Additional Public prosecutor has also reiterated the subrnission made by the Iearned counsel for the petitioner.

5. In view of the said submission, as the matter is squarely covered by the order in the above Criminal Petition, this criminal petition is allou,ed in terms of the above said order, adopting tl-re reasoning contatned therein. The proceedings againsL the pe titioner/ accused in C.O.R.No.123 of 2025, on thc fiIe of yellandu prohibition & Excise Station, Bhadradri Kothagudent District, are hereby quashed.

6. Accordingly, the Crirninal Petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous applic.rtions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. A. JAYASREE SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, \ 1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellandu, Bh 2. The Station House Officer, Proh. & Excise Statio SECTION OFFICER Kothagudem District ndu, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

3. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT) 4. One CC to SRI ARVAPALLI SHIVA SAI NATH Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Note: Annex/enclose copy of order in CrlP.No.15636 of 2013 dated 04-03- 2022. TPK,&arn (k L:! HIGH COURT DATED:0211212025 (' ()\ ( I c o a ., '...1 .l. J ORDER CRLP.No.15868 of 2025 GRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED v\ ('t. ,{ ,--z \ (,1- \1- \\ THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15636 of 2Ol3 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as rvell as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, u.ho is representing the respondent.

2. This Criminai 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.102 of 2013, which is pendrng on the ltle of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, Nizamabad District.

3. Through the material produced, ivhat coulcl 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 alleging that they committed offence punishable under Section 7-A r /w. Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 as well 2 I)L CS - J Crl I' \, ,563L ol2013 as uncler Sct'tion 34(r:) of the Teiangana Excisc 1'ct' 1968' The Courr looi< r:ogtlizancc of thc narrated offctlcr:s agaitlst both the act:usr:d atld numbered the case as C.' l No 102 of 2013 anC ct,tnntenccd the proceedings Aggricvcd by the same, thc l)etitloncr, r'vho is accused No 2 rr the saicl calenclar t::tsc, is bcforc this Court' Thr.L,s. rn tl-rc iight oI thc aforc-mentit' l']rl l:-]ctuzil 4 sccnurlo, thr' point that emerges for considerati rIr is: Whelher therc c,trsts ang justtJlable grollt''''s ta. rrrlokc lhe potuer grontid' under Sectiort " t2 oj' Cr.t'.C ctni to quish the proceedings pt rt Tirt.g aoairr.st thc petitioner/ Accused No ? ir:L i'i xo toz o1 zols on the file of the Ct rtrt ctf JtLd.rcial Maqistrate of First Class, Annort'.

5. The case of the respondcut/ complainan I ils could be perceivccl througll the contents of the chargc r;l-cet is that on 2l.Or:l.2012 on receipt of reliable informatior-t reSiarding illegal distiilation and sale of lD liquor by son'c persons at Santhoshrtagar Tl-randa of Bheemgal Manda ' the Excise Of[rcials accompanied by the panch witnesses proceeded to the sai<l place and traced the smell of ID 1 quor coming 3 D. CSL, J CrLP.No.I51436 of2013 from a house and, therefore, they entered into the said house and during search, they found two big mud vats bu ried underneath the ground, which were filled rvith black jaggery and alum for fermentation, which in turn rvould be used for distillation of ID Liquor. On enquiry, the person present therein revealed his identity particulars. Thc said person further revealed that he is manufacturing and seiling ID liquor for his livelihood and he is purchasing raw material used for distillation of ID liquor i.e., black jaggery lrom the petitioner herein.

6. Tl-rus, the person from rvhose possession, the fermented j.,gg"ry was seized and the person from rvhom the black jagg"ry 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 arrayecl as accused No.2, is running a Kirana Store and though his involvement in the alleged crime is 'nil', he was falsely implicated in this case and, therefore, he approached this lrr CSt., J alr N) 156:16 o12013 Court set:king to qr:ash the proceedings initlate:d against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner furthel ':ontended that selling of black jaggerf and alum by itseif rs not an offence and cven as per the version of the pros:c:ution, the pctitioncr rvas only scllir-rg black jogg"ry and rlum in his shop an<l, therefore, continuation of procee<tin14s against him should not be Permitted

8. On the other hand, the learned Assist:rnt Public Prosecutor contended that the invoLvemi nt of the petitione r/Accused No.2 is fcrund and thct gh he was prohibitcd to sell the material that i:; used in manrtfacturing of ID liquor, he was selling ti-i: same and, thereforer, hc is liable for prosecution. g . Durtng the course of hearing, learned co 'ltrsel for the pctrtioner brougl-rt to the notice of this (lourt' the proceedtngs issued by the Government of Anchra Pradesh in Memo No.478O2 /Ex.III- l/2006-13, dated 20'I2'201O' Placing reliance on the said memo, learned co u esel for the petitioner contended that possession of black jaggery or 5 D..CSL, J Crl P No.I5636 ol20l3 sale of the same does not fall within the purview of Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968. For the purpose of analysis and continuation of discussion in a fruitful manncr, the contents of the said memo, are extractcd us under: "The attention of the Commissioner of Prohibition and trxcise, A.P., Hyderabad is invited to the reference 1st cited, wherein he has sent proposal for inclusion of Rotten Jaggery under definition of material in A. P. Excise Act, I 968 so as to ensure elfective control of [D arrack crime and to improve Govcrnment Revenue.

2. Government after careful examination ol 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 list of the 'materials' used in the manufacture of ID liquor may adversely affect the interest of genuine ryots and thc 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." 10- Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 delines certain words. Section 2 (22A1 of the Telangana Excise Act, 6 Dt (lSL J Cl'I'\o.15636o120I3 i:; i:i 1968 s a,.,.-s u,hat the word "material" incLudes lt lays down as unclcr: " n.rtterial" tncludcs molasses, wash and sttt h other sul;stztnces as the Statc Government nLay' by Uol i[,, ;' ton. sllccilY: 1 1. Thus, it is clear that the word 'mater izJ' includes molasses, u,ash and such other substar c3s as the State Governme nt may by notihcation, spt c:fy' By the Memo referrecl sttpra, the Government has tlecided not to impose restrictiol-ls on any agncultu -al produce' particularll' on jaggev, black jaggery or rotten - rfgery' in the list of rnaterrals used in the manufacture of il) liquor' as the Government opined that inciusion of tlre same may adversely affect the interest of the genuine Jots and the traders. It has clearly indicated that the propc sirl to include rotten jaggery under dehnition 'material' un<1t'r Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act, f 968, therelt rr:' was not acceptcd by the Govcrnment. Thus, it 15 'i:ar that the petitioner, who is running a General St'rre, being in possession of Jaggery, does not mean that he has l I i t !. : I i I I I 7 Dr.CSL, J Crl P.No.15636 of 2013 committed an offence punlshable under Section 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968.

12. 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 intoxicant other than toddy. As earlier discussed, black jaggery does not fall within the term 'material,, as ennmerated under Section 2 (22A) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioner has committed an olfence as laid down under Section 34(e) of the said Act.

13. Coming to the contents of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1965, the version of the respondent is that the petitioner/ Accused No.2 has committed offence punishable under Section 7-A r f w. Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995. Section 7-A of the Telangana 8 DT.CSI-, J : lI'.No.15a)36 of2013 Prohibition Act, 1995 prohibits production, :nanufacture, storagc, posscssion, collcction, purchasc sale and transportation of arrack. Section B(e) ol rlre Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 envisages that the p:rson, rvho contravenes the provision of Section 7 A of t lo Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 bc punished with irnpri:'onmcnt for a term, which shall r-rot be less than one year, b-rl. rvhich may extend upto eight years and with fine, whicl r;hall not be less than ruPecs two lakl-ts.

14. It is not thc version ofthe Excise officitils, cvell as per the contents of thc charge shect, that the petitioner was founcl in the process of producing, tn2nr-rf26[r rring, storing' possessing, collecling, selling or transporting arrack' Therefore. he rvill not fall within the amblt ol S':ction 7-A of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995, for which punishment rs prescribed under Scction 8(e) of Telangana "lrc Prohibitior-r Act, 1995. 1 5. Thus, in the light of afore-mentioned discussion that went on regarding the merits of the case and the legal ; I I ! I t I I t T I I I I ! I I I i ! i I I ! ! I : I I 9 Dr.CSL, J Crl. P.No. I5636 of 2O I3 position involved, this Court unhesitatingly holds that taking cognizance against thc petitioncr by the Court is unjustiliable and, therefore, it amounts to abuse of process of law.

16. 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 Magistratc of First Class, Armoor, are hereby quashed

17. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closcd. DT. CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J Date: 04.O3.2022 NOl'li : L.R- Copy be marked (B/o) Msr