Telangana High Court
Theegala Ajay Goud vs The State Of Telangana on 4 February, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1088 of 2025
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed by petitioners-accused Nos.2
and 8 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.720 of 2021,
pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at
Sircilla. The offences alleged are under Sections 188, 269, 270 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and 3 of the Epidemic Disease Act,
1897 (for short 'the Act, 1897) and 34(A) of the Telangana Excise Act
(for short 'the Act').
02. Heard Sri Burra Ravi Theja, learned counsel for
petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
allegations levelled against the petitioners lacks the ingredients of the
aforesaid offences. He would further submit that the petitioners are
the owner of M/s. Shiva Bar and Restaurant having a valid license
and permit to sell liquor and he did not indulge in illegal sale of liquor.
Since lock-down was imposed by the Government due to COVID-19
pandemic, the petitioners were not doing any business and just he
kept the stock in the lodge situated in the first floor of the said Bar.
The petitioners having purchased the liquor under a valid invoice did
not indulge in any illegal sale or transport of liquor.
04. It is further submitted that the subject matter is
squarely covered by a common order in Chidurala Shyamsubder v.
State of Telangana 1 rendered by the High Court of Judicature at
Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra
Pradesh. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
this Court vide Orders dated 20.03.2023 passed in CRL.P.No.6062 of
2021 quashed the proceedings against the accused Nos.1,2,4,5 and
7 in same CC i.e. C.C.No.720 of 2021 and that this Court vide Orders
dated 21.06.2021 passed in CRL.P.No.2576 of 2021 quashed the
proceedings against the accused No.6. Hence, he prayed this Court
to quash the proceedings against the present petitioners who are
arrayed as accused Nos.3 and 8.
05. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State has tried to distinguish the principle laid down
in the said judgment to the facts of the present case.
06. It is apt to refer to Sections - 269 and 270 of IPC,
which are as under:
"269. Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease
dangerous to life.--Whoever unlawfully or negligently
CRL.P.No.3731 of 2018 and batch decided on 27.08.2018
does any act which is, and which he knows or has
reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of
any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to six months, or with fine, or with both."
"270. Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease
dangerous to life.--Whoever malignantly does any act
which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe
to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease
dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both."
07. In Chidurala Shyamsubder (supra), a learned Single
Judge of the High Court observed that transportation of chewing
tobacco or Khaini or Pan Masala do not constitute an offence
punishable under Section - 270 of IPC and, therefore, the same is not
an offence since it is not a noxious food. The learned Single Judge
further observed as under:
"....The act done by the petitioners i.e., transportation
of khaini and chewing tobacco though dangerous to
human life, it would not spread or infect or cause any
disease on account of transportation and if those
products are consumed by human being, it would
certainly cause damage to the health. Therefore,
transportation of khaini or chewing tobacco is not by
itself is not an offence under Section - 270 of IPC and it
would fall within Section 270 of IPC."
08. Like-wise, Section - 269 of IPC deals with negligent act
likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life. But, there is no
such allegation mentioned in the complaint by the Police. In the
present case, the allegations against the petitioners herein are that
they were illegally shifting liquor during Lock Down period with an
intention to sell the same in black market to make wrongful gain.
Thereafter, the police seized the said stock and the same is lying with
them. In view of the same, the contents of the complaint lacks the
ingredients of Sections - 188, 269 and 270 of IPC and, therefore, the
proceedings in the aforesaid case for the said offences are liable to
be quashed against the petitioners.
09. As far as offence under Section 3 - of the Act, 1897, is
concerned, it deals with 'penalty'. It is apt to extract the same, which is
as under:
"Section - 3: Penalty. Any person disobeying any
regulation or order made under this Act shall be deemed
to have committed an offence punishable under section
188 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 )".
10. In view of the above provision, coming to the case on
hand, the allegation against the petitioners herein is that they are
selling the liquor at higher rates during Lock Down for wrongful gain.
But, the Police neither mentioned in the charge sheet as to whom the
petitioners were selling such liquor at higher rates, nor examined
those persons by recording their statements under Section - 161 of
Cr.P.C. Thus, the contents of the complaint do not attract the offence
punishable under Section - 3 of the Act, 1897 against the petitioners
herein. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners herein for
the offence punishable under Section - 3 of the Act, 1897 are also
liable to be quashed in the above case.
11. As far as offence under Section 34 (a) of the Excise
Act is concerned, it is trite to note that Chapter - 7 deals with 'offences
and penalties'. Section - 34 deals with 'Penalties for illegal import etc.'
and the same is extracted as under:
"34. Penalties for illegal import etc. - Whoever, in
contravention of this Act or of any rule, notification or
order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any
licence or permit granted or issued under this Act,-
(a) imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects
or possesses or sells any intoxicant;"
12. As stated above, the petitioners herein are running a
Bar and Restaurant under the name and style "Shiva Bar and
Restaurant" having obtained a valid excise license from the
Beverages Corporation by paying requisite fee and the same is in
force. The petitioners alleged to have shifted the liquor bottles from
his shop to the Lodge situated in the first floor of the same premises.
The allegation against the petitioners is that they was selling the liquor
at higher rates for wrongful gain. As already stated above, the police
did not examine any person to whom they sold. Thus, in the absence
of the same and in view of the above discussion, this offence is also
liable to be quashed.
13. In view of the above discussion, the present Criminal
Petition is allowed in terms of the judgment in Chidurala Shyamsubder
(supra), and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.3
and 8 in C.C.No.720 of 2021 pending on the file of learned Judicial
Magistrate of First Class at Sircilla, are hereby quashed.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
______________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 04-FEB-2025
KHRM
