IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.18092 of 2025 DATE OF ORDER:- 06.01.2026 Between:

Arram Satish Kumar, S/o.Arram Siddi Ramulu, R/o.Nirmal, Telangana.

… Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Telangana rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad & another.

…Respondents

ORDER

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.O.R.No.226 of 2025, on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition & Excise, Nirmal) at Nirmal, registered for the offences punishable under Section 36(e) of Telangana Excise Act, 1968.

2. Heard Mr.Mohd.Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the orders dated 04.03.2022 and 06.10.2025 passed in Crl.P.No.15636 of 2013 and Crl.P.No.12859 of 2025 and enclosed copy of the said orders along with the criminal petition.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the issue raised in the present criminal petition is squarely covered by the earlier orders passed in the above criminal petitions.

5. Perused the record. The allegation leveled against the petitioner is that he was found in possession of 100 Kgs of black Jaggery and 5 Kgs of Pattika. It is alleged that the said black Jaggery is used as a material in preparation of ID liquor and that the petitioner had been selling it to earn good returns as it is used in the manufacture of such liquor. An FIR has been registered under Section 34 (e) of the Act, which prescribes penalties for the illegal import, export, etc., of prohibited materials mentioned therein without any license or permit. Specifically, Section 34(e) of the Excise Act penalizes the use and possession of any materials, stills, utensils, implements, or apparatus whatsoever for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy.

6. The material alleged to have been seized herein is black Jaggery and Pattika. It is pertinent to refer Section 2 (22A) of Excise Act which reads as under:

Section 2(22A)”:- "Material' includes molasses, wash and such other substances as the State Government may, by notification, specify";

7. Further, proceedings were issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in Memo No.47802/Ex.III.1/2006-13, dated 20.12.2010 and the contents of the said memo are extracted below:

“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 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 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.”

8. Thus, a conjoint reading of Section 34(e) of the Act, the definition of “material” under Section 2(22A) of the Act, and the recitals of the Government Memo dated 20.12.2010 would lead to the conclusion that black jaggery is not a material as enumerated under Section 2(22A) of the Act. Hence, it cannot be held that the petitioner had committed an offence as laid down un