Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 13162
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Dev Kishan Ladda – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.540 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Unknown
For the Respondents: Unknown
Possession and sale of jaggery do not constitute an offence under the Telangana State Excise Act as per government clarification.
Headnote:(A) Telangana State Excise Act, 1968 - Section 34(e) - Criminal proceedings against accused for possession of materials for ID liquor manufacturing quashed - Court observed that definition of 'material' excludes jaggery as per government memo - Accused's actions don’t constitute an offence under the act. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
(B) Abuse of process of law - Continuation of criminal proceedings without a valid offence established is an abuse of process. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused of selling raw materials purportedly for ID liquor, argues legitimate business activity without involvement in any offence as defined under the Excise Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that jaggery is not included as 'material' under the Act and quashed proceedings against the petitioner.
Issues: The legality of proceedings against the petitioner for selling jaggery and alum.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that possession and sale of jaggery does not constitute an offence under the Excise Act as clarified by government policy.
Result: Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks quashing of proceedings under the excise act. (Para 1 , 2 , 5) |
| 2. description of evidence and actions leading to offenses. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 9) |
| 3. government memo clarifies the legal status of jaggery. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court found no legal basis for prosecution. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. final decision to quash proceedings. (Para 12) |
O R D E R:
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 F.I.R.No.7 of 2022 of Yellandu Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 34 (e) of Telangana State Excise Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, who is representing respondent No.1.
3. The case of respondent/complainant, as could be perceived through the contents of the F.I.R., is that on 06.01.2022 on receipt of reliable information regarding illegal distillation and sale of ID liquor by some persons, the Sub-Inspector of Police Excise accompanied by the panch witnesses proceeded to the Sompet Forest Check Post and conducted vehicular check and apprehended the driver of the auto bearing No.TS 28 T 7324, during search, they found 200 kgs of Jaggery and 50 kgs of Alum, total worth Rs.12,000/-. 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 and alum from the petitioner herein.
4. Thus, the person from whose possession, the fermented jaggery and alum was seized and the person from whom the jaggery and alum was purchased by the said person are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 and 2, respectively.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2, is the owner of M/s.Daduram Sathyam Trading Company and is doing business under valid license, registered under the Government of India, i.e., Form GST REG-06 Registration Certificate No.36ACCPL7127K2ZF 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 jaggery and alum by itself is not an offence and even as per the version of the prosecution, the petitioner was only selling jaggery and alum in his shop and, therefore, continuation of proceedings against him should not be permitted. He further contended that the Kothagudem excise officials interfered with the business of the petitioner and he was constrained to filed W.P.No.23448 of 2020 and this Court was pleased to pass an order dated 30.12.2020 directing the police officials not to interfere with the business activity of the petitioner.
6. 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.
7. 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 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 fo
