The 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 PATNAMSHETTY SAI SHARAN, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER "/ AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO ONN Date: 10.12.2025 Between: Sham and another. AND ...Petitioners The State of Telangana, through SHO, Suryapet Prohibition and Excise Station, Suryapet District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. ...Respondent ORDER This criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in c.o.R.No.244 of 2025 on the file of Suryapet Prohibition and Excise Station, Suryapet District, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.l and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 3a(e) of the T.S.Excise Act, 1968.

2. Heard Mr.P.Sai Sharan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.v.Jithendar Rao, learned Additional Public prosecutor for respondent. \ \ 2 ,4,

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue raised in this criminal petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.15636 of 2013, dated 04.03.2022.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioners.

5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective parties and the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.l5636 of 2013, dated 04.8.2A22, this criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2 in C.O.R.No.244 of 2025 on the file of Suryapet Prohibition and Excise Station, Suryapet District are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. P. CH, NAGABHUSHAM //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, l.TheJudicialFirstClassMagistrateatSuryapet,suryapetDistrict. 2. The S.H.O., Suryapet Prohibition and Excise Station' Suryapet District' 3.oneCCtoSRl.PATNAMSHETTYSAlSHARANAdvocateIoPUCI 4- Two CCs to PUBLTC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT].

5. Two CD Copies p{?/;\ vIz Z1 / Itt .frr:__egf€ t"r t ag' w . *,t. | 1:', / HIGH COURT JSRJ DATED i1011212025 i I \ \ \ CRLP.No.16438 of 202i <Ltt: t I tE r.r (]", -. ' a-) 1i : -t, ml .t' t. ' ,ia'.. ^ '--r,.- ,-- CRIMINAL PEITITION IS ALLOWED. ,{ ;-.. i! -,-':.il.t!ii,i;;, -*i,,:f-i. .,', . "^.. -'"I lt r"' + .' .:. .: ., (: '-, . fY; :'-._:j: .+ j.._. ..t,.:r.'l-.' :,t: :,*. li.#l;ii:.: . . .. '.: jn, . -.r-j- '1 ". ::: .i.r,i;e, t THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLIU(IR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15636 of 2O13 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. lO2 of 201.3, which is pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, Nizamabad District.

3. Through the material produced, what could be culminated and gathered by this Court is, that the Sub Inspectof of Police for Prohibition and Excise-, Bheemgal, charge sheeted the petitioner and another alleging that they committed offence punishable under Section 7-Ar/w. Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 as well 2 Dr.CSL, J Crl.P.No. 15636 of 2Ol3 as under Section 3a(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 196g. The court took cognizance of the narrated offences against both the accused and numbered the case as c.c.No .102 0f 2013 and commenced the proceedings. Aggrieved by the s€une, the petitioner, who is accused No.2 in the said calendar case, is before this Court. 4' Thus' in the light of the afore-mentioned factual scenario, the point that emerges for consideration is: Whether there erisfs ang justifiable grounds to inuoke the pouter grantidund.", seciion-+ii of Cr.p.C. and to quish the proceed.ings pending against ,!" ^ ^qritioner)Accused No.2 in C.C.No.1o2 of 2ots on ie fite of thi Coun oy Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor.

5. The case of the respondent/complainant, as could be perceived through the contents of the charge sheet, is that on 2r'o6'20L2 0n receipt of reliable information regarding illegal distiltation and sale of ID liquor by somd persons at santhoshnagar Thanda of Bheemgal Mandal, the Excise officials accompanied by the panch witnesses proceeded to the said place and traced the sme, of ID riquor coming t 3 Dr.CSL, J Crl.P.No.15636 of20l3 from a house and, therefore, they entered into t].e said house and during search, they found two big mud vats buried underneath the ground, which were lilled with black jaggery and alum for fermentation, which in turn would be used for distillation of ID riquor. 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 rivelihood and he is purchasing raw material used for distillation of ID liquor i.e., brack jaggery from the petitioner herein.

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

7. Making his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, who is ar.rayed as accused No.2, is running a Kirana Store and though his involvement in the alleged crime is hil', he was falsery implicated in this case and, therefore, he approached this 4 Dr.CSL, J Crl.P.No. 15636 of 2Ot3 court seeking to quash the procebdings initiated against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that selling of black jaggery and alum by itself is not an offence and even as per the version of the prosecution, the petitioner was only selling black jaggery and alum in his shop and, therefore, continuation of proceedings against him should not be permitted.

8. on the other hand, the learned Assistant public Prosecutor contended that the involvement of the petitioner/Accused No.2 is found and though he was prohibited to sell the material that is used in manufacturing of ID liquor, he was selling the same and, therefore, he is liable for prosecution.

9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice .of this court, the proceedinls issued by the Government of Andhra pradesh in Memo No.47802lEx.III. r /2006-13, dated 2o.r2.2oro. Placing reliance on the said memo, rearned counser for the petitioner contended that possession of black jaggery or 5 Dr.CSL, J Crl.P.No. I 5636 of 2O r3 sale of the sErme does not fall within the purrriew of Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1969. For the purpose of analysis 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 lst cited, wherein he has sent proposal for inclusion of Rotten Jaggery under aefinition 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 agriculture produce or its bi-products and inclusion of the sarne in the list of the 'materials' used in the manufacture of ID liquor may adversely affect the interest of genuine ryots and the traders. Hence, it was decided ,,ot to impose restriction on any agriculture produce, particularly on Ja egery. 3. Hence, the proposal to include rotten jaggery under definition of tnaterial, u/s. 2 of A.p. Ex;is; Act, 1968 has not been accepted by the Governrntsnt."

10. section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act, 196g defines certain words. section 2 l22A) of the Telangana-Excise Act, 6 Dr.CSL, J Crl.P.No.l5636 of2Ol3 1968 says what the word "materiar" incrudes. tt la5rs down as under: 'materia| includes molasses, wash and such other substances as the State Government fray, by notification, speci$r; 1 1' Thus, it is clear that the word ,material, includes molasses, wash and such other substances as the State Government may by notification, speciSr. By the Memo referred supra, the Government has decided not to impose restrictions on any agricultural produce, particularly on jaggey, black j"ggery or rotten jiggery, in the list of materiars used in the manufacture of ID riquor, as the Government opined that incrusion of the same may adversely affect the interest of the genuine ryots and the traders. It has crearry indicated that the proposar to incrude rotten jaggery under definition 'material'under section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act, 196g, therefore, was not accepted by the Government. Thus, it is creJ that the petitioner, who is running a General Storq, being in possession of Jaggery, does not mean that he has 7 Dr.CSL, J Crl.P.No.15636 of 2Ol3 committed an offence punishable under Section 3a(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 3a(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', &S enumerated under Section 2 (22A).of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioner has committed an offence as laid down under Section 3a(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 rlw. Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995. Section 7-A of the Telangana 8 Dr.CSL, J Crl.P.No.l5636 of 20t3 Prohibition Act, 1995 prohibits production, manufacture, storage, possession, collection, purchase, sale and transportation of arrack. section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 envisages that the person, who contravenes the provision of Section z-A of the Telang€rna Prohibition Act, 1995 be punished with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than one yea.r, but which may extend upto eight years and with fine, which shall not be less than rupees two lakhs. L4. It is not the version of the Excise offrcials, even as per the contents of the charge sheet, that the petitioner was found in the process of producing, manufacturing, storing, possessing, collecting, selling or transporting arrack. Therefore, he will not fall within the ambit of section T-A of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995, for which punishment is prescribed under Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 199S.

15. Thus, in the light of afore-mentioned discussion that went on reg€rrding the merits of the case and the legal j'. F 9 Dr.CSL, J Crl.P,No.l5636 of20t3 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. 16' Resultantly, this criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings that are pending against the petitioner/ Accused No' 2 in c'c'No-702 0f 2013 0n the fire of the court of Judicial Magistrate of First class, Arrnoor, are hereby quashed

17. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed- Dr. CHILIIIKI'R SUMALATHA, J Date: O4.O3.2O22. NOTE: L.R. Copy be marked. (B/o) Msr .