Telangana High Court
Mr.Ghanshyamdas Karwa, vs The State Of Telangana on 10 March, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N. Tukaramji
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3396 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard Mr. Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
2. This criminal petition has been filed seeking quashment of
proceedings in C.C.No.5812 of 2023 on the file of IV Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad against the
petitioners/accused Nos.7 and 8.
3. The accusation against the petitioners is that they are
running business of black jaggery powder and alum allied
material which are used for manufacturing illicit distilled liquor and
supply these materials on orders from the customers.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that none
of the prosecution proceedings are demonstrating that the
petitioners are involved in distilling illicit liquor and the accusation
of conducting business in black jaggery powder and sciatic would
not call for prosecution. He further submits that this Court vide
order dated 06.02.2025 in Criminal Petition No.1664 of 2025 had
considered similar aspect and concluded that in absence of any
2 NTR,J
CrlP_3396_2025
materials that the petitioners processed intoxicant substance,
cannot be held liable for any offence under Excise Act and
quashed the proceedings. Thus as the contested aspect in the
present criminal petition is squarely covered in the earlier
judgments prayed for putting into effect and to quash the
proceedings.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would fairly submit
that the aspect has been considered and determined by this
Court in the above referred criminal petition and that proposition
is squarely applicable to the present case.
6. I have perused the materials on record and carefully
considered the submissions of the learned counsel.
7. A Coordinate bench of this Court in the Criminal Petition
No.1664 of 2025 supra having considered the Memo issued by
the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide No.47802/Ex.III.1/2006-
13, dated 20.12.2010 wherein the request to impose ban or
restriction on possession or sale of black jaggery or jaggery under
Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act was declined and the
purport of Section 2(22A) and Sections 34 & 13 (1) (f) and 42 (c)
of the Telangana Excise Act held that engaging in business of
3 NTR,J
CrlP_3396_2025
purchase or sale of jaggery would not be committing an offence.
The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
"Sections 34 and 13(1)(f) of the Telangana Excise Act, lays down
penalty for illegal import, export etc., and for manufacture of the
prohibited material mentioned therein without any license or permit.
Section 34€ penalizes the use, keeping in possession any material,
stills, utensils, implements or apparatus whatsoever for the purpose of
manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy. The presumption
given under Section 42( c ) of th Excise Act is that any materials which
have undergone any process towards the manufacture of any
intoxicant or from which an intoxicant has been manufactured; for the
possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily. There is no
material to show that the petitioners have processed the said black
jaggery for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant substance.
As earlier discussed, jaggery does not fall within the term 'material', as
enumerated under Section 2 (22A) of the Telangana Excise Act.
Thus, it is clears that the petitioners, who are engaged in the business
of purchase and sale of jaggery, have not committed the offences
alleged against them.
In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the
continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2
and 5 amounts to abuse of process of law."
8. In view of the above concluded proposition and as the
accusations against the petitioners herein are that they are
4 NTR,J
CrlP_3396_2025
conducting business in black jaggery powder, it shall be held that
continuance of proceedings against the petitioners would be
abuse of process of law. For that reason, the proceedings
against the petitioners/accused Nos.7 and 8 in C.C.No.5812 of
2023 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Nampally, Hyderabad are liable to be quashed. Ordered
accordingly.
9. In the result, this criminal petition is allowed.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, stands
closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI,J
Date:10-03-2025
ccm
