LawSphereX

Bantu Shiva, v. The State of Telangana. Through S.H.O., Prohibition Et Excise Station,

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO

Judgment date:

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-01. Bantu Shiva, v. The State of Telangana. Through S.H.O., Prohibition Et Excise Station,. Read...

Judgment text

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO:4743 OF-2026 Between: Bantu Shiva, S/o. Mattaiah, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Kirana store, R/o. H. No. 22- 158, Main Bazar, Miryalaguda, Sanjaynagar, Nalgonda District. ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 2 ANO The State of Telangana. Through S. H. O. , Prohibition & Excise Station, Miryalguda,Nalgonda Diskict. Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings, Hyderabad ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the COR No. 123 of 2025 ol Prohibition & Excise Station, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, and quash the proceedings thereon l. A.

NO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant STAY of all further proceedings in COR No. '123 ol 2025 ot Prohibition a Excise Station, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri HARI KISHAN KUDIKALA, Advocate for the Petitioner and SRl. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Sole Respondent The Gourt made the following: ORDER w HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANI AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREE 1ITVAS RAO CRJMINAL PETITION No. 4743 of 2 026 i Date: O1. O4. 2026 I I Between Bantu Shiva Petiti, ner/Accused No-2 AND The State of Telangana, Through s. H. O. , Prohibition & Excise Station, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District, Rep.

by Public Prosecutor, , High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. i Respondents :ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been I'iled by Lhe re titioner/ accused No. 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C. O. R. Io. l23 of 2025 on the file of the Prohibition and trxcise Station, Miralguda, Nalgonda District, registered for the offences under Sectior ,(A) read with B(3) of T. S. Prohibition Act, 1995 and Section 3a(3) of t re T. S. Excise Act, l, E r995. 2. Heard Mr. Hari Kishan Kudikala, Iearnt:r counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, :arned Additional I Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the resl), ndent-State. 3. l,earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised in this criminal petition is squarely covered by the orders passed by this Court in Crl. P. No. 14768 of 2025, dated 13. 1 l. 2O2S, arrd also placed a copy of the said order. The petitioner is also entitled for the very same relief.

Hence, the continuation of the proceedings aga-inst the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law. 4. The said submission has not disputed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. Taking into consideration the orders passed by this Court in Crl. P. No. 14768 of 2025, dated 73. 11. 2025, and in view of the submission made by the both counsel, this Court hnds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C. O. R. No. 123 of 2025 on the file of the ProhibiLion and Excise Station, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District, against the petitioner/ accused No. 2, are hereby quashed. Miscellaleous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTR. AR (-? //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Miryalaguda, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District 2.

One CC to SRI HARI KISHAN KUD|KALAAdvocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at \9 Hyderabad [OUTI 4. Two CD Copies ',J ;. -,rffi HIGH COURT DATED: 0110412026 ORDER CRLP. No. 4743 ol 2026 () r lHt Sre o, (, z ! il APB 217$ ,t \,jp,, \. . L 'ti. * l 1l 1. -! - ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION e THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA OEVIEADA CRIMINAL PETITION No. l4768 ot2025 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (tor short 'BNSS') seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos. t to 3 in C. O. R. No. 545 of 2025, on the file of Thorrur Prohibition and Excise Station, Mahabubabad District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) read with 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 and Section 34(e) of Telangana Excise Act. (for short'the Act') 2. Heard Sri A. Shiva Sainath, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.

1 to 3 as well as Mr. Erigi Ganesh, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the order dated 10. 10. 2025 passed tn Crl. P. No. 13106 of 2025 and enclosed copy of the said order along with the criminal petition, Crlp_14768_2025 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also stt nitted that the issue raised in the present criminal petition is squa 3ly covered by the earlier order passed in the above criminal petation 5. Perused the record. The allegation levek d against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 is that they were fourr I in possession of 60 white bags, each bag having 50 Kgs of blacl< Jaggery and 2 white bags, each bag having 50 Kgs of Alum. lt is i lleged that the said black Jaggery and Alum are used as materials ir preparation of lD liquor and that the petitioners had been selling : to earn good returns as it is used in the manufacture of such liqu rr.

An FIR has been registered under Section 34 (e) of the Act, lv rich prescribes penalties for the illegal import, export, etc. , of prolr oited materials mentioned therein without any license or permit. Spe< lfically, Section 34(e) of the Excise Act penalizes the use and pos ;ession of any I materials, stills, utensils, implements, or apparatus ryhatsoever for I the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other thil r toddy t t t 6. The material alleged to have been seized lerein is black I I i Jaggery and Alum- lt is pertinent to refer Section 2 r22Al of Excise Act which reads as under: e / Crlp_14768 2025 "Sectio n2l22Al:- "Material' includes motasses, 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. 47802lEx. lll. 1t2OO6-13, dated 20122010 and the contents of the said memo are extracted berow: "The aftention of the Commissioner prohibition of and Excise, A-P.

, Hyderabad is invited to the reference 1st cited, wherein he has sent proposat for inclusion of Rotten Jaggery under definition of mateiat in A. p. Excise Act, 1968 so as to ensure effective control of lD arrack cime and to improve Government Revenue- 2. Govemment after carefut examination of the malter, hereby decided that Black Jaggery or Rotten Jaggery or any other form of Jaggerylre viewed as agiculture produce or its bi-products and inclusion of ,mateials' the same in the list of the used in the manufacture of lD liquor may adversely affect the interest of genuine ryots and the traders_ Hence, it was. decided to impose restiction on . not any agiculture produce, particutady on Jaggery. 3, the proposal to include rotten jaggery lence, under definition of 'mateiat' u/s. 2 ot A. p. 5-:xci{i ect, rcAA has not been accepted by the Govemment. " 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 dated20. 12. 20l0 would lead to the conclusion that black jaggery is not a material as enumerated Ctlp_14768 2025 under Section 2(22A) ot the Act. Hence, it cannot be I eld that the petitioners have committed an offence as laid r cwn under Section 34(e) of the said Act. 9. Similar matters have been disposed of by e lo-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. P. No. 15636 of 2013' rherein the proceedings against the petitioner therein were quas red holding that taking cognizance for possession of black jzrl gery would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Applyir the same ; analogy, this Court is also of the considered r pinion that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners t erein would amount to an abuse of process of law. 10.

ln view of the foregoing discussion, the Cri r inal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitionert;, accused Nos. 1 rrohibition to 3 in C. O. R. No. 545 of 2025, on the file of Thorrur' and Excise Station, Mahabubabad District, are hereby qtti shed. 11. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall st rnd closed. JUSTICE TIRUMI\ . A DEVI EADA Dt. 13. 11. 2025 ysk

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.