THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13342 of 2025

ORDER

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 in C.C.No.2138 of 2020, pending on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Suryapet Rural, registered for the offence punishable under Section 34 (e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Heard Sri A.Shiva Sainath, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the order dated 04.03.2022 in Crl.P.No.15636 of 2013 and enclosed a copy of the said order.

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

5. Perused the record. The allegation against the petitioners is that they were found in possession of 40 Quintals of black Jaggery. It is alleged that the said black Jaggery is used as a material in preparation of ID liquor and that the petitioners 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. It is pertinent to refer Section 2 (22A) of Excise Act which reads as under:

"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 petitioners have committed an offence as laid down under Section 34(e) of the said Act.

9. Similar matters have been disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.15636 of 2013, wherein the proceedings against the petitioners therein were quashed holding that taking cognizance for possession of black jaggery would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Applying the same analogy, this Court is also of the considered opinion that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners herein wo