The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, through S.H.O., Nampally Prohibition & ExcisJ Station, Nalgonda Disrrict, rep. by its Fhblic prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. :ORD ER: Respondent This Criminal petition has been filed by the pe ,itioner/ accused ln C.O.R.No 55 of 2025 of seeking to quash the proceedings Nampally Prohibition and Excise registered for the offence Station, Ne 1 londa District, under Section 3a(3) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968.

2. Heard Mr.A. Shiva Sainath, learned counsel fo the petitioner, and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Ari titional public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. t earned counsel for the petitioner submitted .hat the issue raised in this criminal petition is squarely covered by tlLr orders passed --=re-n-,-- -*-.- .- \ -- 2 by this Court in Crl.P.No. 15636 of 2013, dated 04.03.2022 and also placed a copy of the said order. The petilioner is also entitled for the very same relief. Hence, tJle continuaLion of tJle proceedings against tJle petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

4. The said submission has not disputed by learned Additiona-l Public Prosecutor.

5. Taking into consideration the orders passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.15636 of 2073, dated O4.03.2022, and in view of the submission made by the both counsel, this Court finds it to be a ht case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.

6. Accordingly, thc Criminal Petition is allowed arrd the proceedings in C.O.R.No.SS of 2025 of Nampally Prohibition and Excise StaLion, Naglonda District, against the petitioner/accused, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/-M.OSMAN ALI BAIG SISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 2 J 4 5 VH The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hyderabad rh e s ta ti on Ho use off i cer, Nr r p ].w9 CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.[OUT] rr /t"}8J$ri i iffi f; "." " One CC to Sri Arvapalti Shiva Sai Nath, Advocate [OpUC] Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 22t12t2025 ORDER CRLP.No.17401 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETTTION q t f-]- 24 l). ':.<. 'ii.* - \\c)c. -\--.-. 'ij'1 \ - .,1. ,,i, (-_ D[[ z!5 v (_-) Jr ." - ":T) THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAI(,R SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15635 of 2O13 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistalt 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. 102 of 2013, 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 Inspector of Police for Prohibition and Excise, Bheemgal, charge sheeted the petitioner and another alleging that they committed offence punishable under Section 7-L t lw. Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 as well 2 Dr.CSL, J (lr.l No.15636 of20l3 as under Section 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968. The Court took cognizance of the narrated offer:es against both the accused and numbered the case as C. ).No.102 of 2013 and commenced the proceedings. Aggr < ved by the same, the petitioner, who is accused No.2 i r the said calendar case, is before this Court.

4. Thus, in the light of the aJore-mentior ed factual scenario, the point that emerges for considerati,r r is: Whether there eists ang justifiable groun( s to inuoke the pou.ter granted under Section 4t 2 of Cr.P.C. and to quash the proceedings pen ling against the petitioner/ Accused No.ll in C.C.No.102 of 2013 on the file of the Cott t of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor.

5. The case of the respondent/complainant, a; could be perceived through the contents of the charge stLr et, ts that on 21.06.2012 on receipt of reliable informatior-r regarding illegal distillation and sale of ID liquor by some rersons at Santhoshnagar Thalda of Bheemgal Mandal. 1 -re Excise Officia-ls accompanied by the panch witnesses p;'r ceeded to the said place and traced the smell of ID liqrr, r coming Dr.CSL, J Crl.P.No.15636 oI2013 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 filled with black jaggery 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 the 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 alleged crime is 'nil', he was falsely implicated in this case and, therefore, he approached this 4 DT,CSL, J crl .No. r 5r;36 0f 20 r3 Court seeking to quash the proceedings init;t ted against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner furthe cor-rtended that selling of black jaggery and alum by its: f is not an offence and even as per the version of the pror;, cution, the petitioner was only selling black jaggery and i lum in his shop and, therefore, continuation of proceedir .gs against him should not be permitted.

8. On the other hand, the learned Assis t rnt Public Prosecutor contended that the involveme r t of the petitioner/Accused No.2 is found and thou6 e he was prohibited to sell the material that rs used in manufacturing of ID liquor, he was selling the same and, therefore, he is liable for prosecution.

9. Durrng the course of hearing, learned cour sel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this ( ourt, the proceedings issued by the Government of Andtr r Pradesh in Memo No.478O2/Ex.IIl.l/2006-13, dated i'| .12.2O1O. Placing reliance on the said memo, learned cour-r rel for the petitioner contended that possession of black . aggery or 5 DT,CSL, J Crl.P.No.15636 of20I3 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 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 definition 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 ald inclusion of the same in the list of the 'materia.ls' used in the malufacture of ID liquor may adversely allect the 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' u/s. 2 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 has not been accepted by the Government."

10. Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 defrnes certain words. Section 2 (221x\ of the Telargana Excise Act, 6 DT CSL, J C I No.15(i36 of 2013 1968 says what the word "material" includes. J- la1's down as under " mateial' includes molasses, wash and suc} other substances as the State Government rr z y, lly notihcation, speciff; 1 1. Thus, it is clear that the word 'matert: f ir-rcludes molasses, wash ald such other substan,l's as the State Government may by notification, spe<:i y. By the Memo referred supra, the Government has c :cided not to impose restrictions on arry agriculturzr. produce, particularly on jaggey, black jaggery or rotten jill ;ery. in the list of materials used in the manufacture of I1) liquor, as the Government opined that inclusion of the ;ame may adversely affect the interest of the genuine ry() s and the traders. It has clearly indicated that the propose I to include rotten jaggery under definition 'materia-l' under ll :ction 2 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968, therefore was not accepted by the Government. Thus, it is cle;r that the petitioner, who is running a General Store being in possession of Jaggery, does not mean theLl he has 7 Dr.CSL, J Crl.P No.15636 of2013 committed an offence punishable 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 'materia-l', as enumerated under Section 2 (22A1 of the Telangala Excise Act, 1968. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioner has committed an offence as lajd 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/w. Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995. Section 7-A of the Telangana 8 Dr.CSL, J C l No 15636 oi 2013 Prohibition Act, 1995 prohibits production, tr anufacture, storage, possession, collection, purchase. sale and transportation of arrack. Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 envisages that the p :rson, who contravenes the provision of Section 7-A of tht Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 be punished with impriso Lment for a term, which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend upto eight years and with fine, which s rall not be less than rupees two lakhs.

14. It is not the version of the Excise officials, iven as per the contents of the charge sheet, that the pe -r -ioner was found in the process of producing, manufactur r g, storing, possessing, collecting, selling or transportrr g arrack. Therefore, he will not fall within the ambit of Sec.ion 7-A of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995, for which 1r Lnishment is prescribed under Section 8(e) of the lelangana Prohibition Act, 1995.

15. Thus, in the light of afore-mentioned discu ;sion that went on regarding the merits of the case an<i the legal 9 Dr.CSL. J crr.P.No 15636 0f2013 position involved, this Court unhesitatingly holds that taking cogaizance 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.102 of 2Ol3 on the f,rle of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor, are hereby quashed. 77 As a sequel, miscellaleous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DT. CHILLAKUR SUMAL/\THA, J Date: 04.O3.2O22. NOTE : L.R. Copy be marked. (B/o) Msr 10 Dr-CSL. J C,l .No I5636 of 2013 THE HONBLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUI IALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No 15636 of 201 l

04.o3.2022 (Msr)