AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.222 of 2026 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Mahabubabad, for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC, Section 7(a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the E.C. Act') and Section 34(E) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.
Heard Mr.Gaje Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
The specific allegation against the petitioner/accused No.2 is that he along with other accused had procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 22.12.2019 at about 3-00 noon, the petitioner and other accused were found in possession of 90 bags consisting 45.00 quintals of PDS rice, 15 bags of black jiggery each bag weighing 50 kgs, total 7.5 quintals and 13 bags of Alum each bag weighing 50 kgs, total 6.5 quintals of alum.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioner for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations, even taken at their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioner. Further, this Court, in Crl.P.No.5709 of 2019, while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioner therein could not be continued and accordingly quashed the proceedings. The petitioner is also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the offence said to have been committed by the petitioner is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the E.C. Act and requested to pass appropriate orders.
Section 7 of the E.C. Act contemplates that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer.
A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that:
"There is no averment indicating that the petitioner in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contract. In the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law."
The facts and circumstances of the present case also similar to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.
Insofar as the allegation against the petitioner that he along with other accused were found in possession of 15 bags of black jaggery each bag weighing 50 kgs, total 7.5 quintals and 13 bags of Alum each bag weighing 50 kgs, total 6.5 quintals of alum, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue raised in this criminal petition is squarely covered by the orders passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.15636 of 2013, dated 04.03.2022 and in Crl.P.No.7562 of 2025 dated 24.06.2025.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioner.
Taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective parties and the orders passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.15636 of 2013, dated 04.03.2022, and in Crl.P.No.7562 of 2025, dated 24.06.2025, the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.222 of 2026 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Mahabubabad, are liable to be quashed.
Taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective parties and in view of the orders passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.15636 of 2013, dated 04.03.2022, and in Crl.P.No.7562 of 2025, dated 24.06.2025, the proceedings in C.C.No.222 of 2026 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Mahabubabad, against the petitioner/accused No.2, are hereby quashed.
Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, who is representing the respondent.
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.
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-A r/w. Section (e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 as well as under Section 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968. The Court took cognizance of the narrated offences against both the accused and numbered the case as C.C.No.102 of 2013 and commenced the proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner, who is accused No.2 in the said calendar case, is before this Court.
Thus, in the light of the afore-mentioned factual scenario, the point that emerges for consideration is:
Whether there exists any justifiable grounds to invoke the power granted under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and to quash the proceedings 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, Armour.
The case of the respondent/complainant, as could be perceived through the contents of the charge sheet, is that on 21.06.2012 on receipt of reliable information regarding illegal distillation and sale of ID liquor by some persons at Santhoshnagar Thanda of Bheemgal Mandal, the Excise Officials accompanied by the panch witnesses proceeded to the said place and traced the smell of ID liquor coming 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.
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. 1 and 2, respectively.
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 Court seeking to quash the proceedings 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.
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.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court, the proceedings issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in Memo No.47802/Ex.III.1/2006-13, dated 20.12.2010. Placing reliance on the said memo, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that possession of black jaggery or 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 1st 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 by-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 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."
Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1958 defines certain words. Section 2 (22A) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 says what the word “material” includes. It lays down as under:
“material” includes molasses, wash and such other substances as the State Government may, by notification, specify;
Thus, it is clear that the word ‘material’ includes molasses, wash and such other substances as the State Government may by notification, specify. By the Memo referred supra, the Government has decided not to impose restrictions on any agricultural produce, particularly on jaggery, black jaggery or rotten jiggery, in the list of materials used in the manufacture of ID liquor, as the Government opined that inclusion of the same may adversely affect the interest of the genuine ryots and the traders. It has clearly indicated that the proposal to include rotten jaggery under definition ‘material’ under Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968, therefore, was not accepted by the Government. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner, who is running a General Store, being in possession of Jaggery, does not mean that he has committed an offence punishable under Section 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968.
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 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 34(e) of the said Act.
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 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 7-A of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 be punished with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend upto eight years and with fine, which shall not be less than rupees two lakhs.
It is not the version of the Excise officials, 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 7-A of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995, for which punishment is prescribed under Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995.
Thus, in the light of afore-mentioned discussion that went on regarding the merits of the case and the legal 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.
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.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.