Single judge allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings under the T.S. Excise Act, 1968, held that continuation against petitioners as license holders and directors amounted to abuse of process without material showing they knowingly facilitated the alleged offence, noting the company was not an accused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[320e ]
I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3939 OF 2022
Between:
..,PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
...RESPONDENTiCOMPLAINANTS
-trtffi
i f stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may I be pleased toto quash the quash charge sheet registered in Cr. No. 13612018 u/s i 36(1 )(i) and 34(2) ot T.S. Excise Act, 1968 on the file of the Hon'ble Special I --EttffolT-Irmrers'ecttorT-4t]zTf-crPs-preyitnE1hzft Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise cases cum Vll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at LB Nagar, Hyderabad in so far as the Petitioner No.1 (Accused No. 6), Petitioner No.2 (Accused No. 7) and Petitioner No.3 (Accused No.8) are concerned.
l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including stay of arrest pursuant to quash charge sheet registered in Cr. No. 13612018 u/s 36(1)(i) and 34(2) of T.S. Excise
, I
Act, 1968 on the f ile of the Hon'ble Special Judicial First Class l,4agistrate for Excise cases cum Vll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at LB Nagar, Hyderabad in so far as the Petitioner No.1 (Accused No. 6), Petitioner No.2 (Accused No. 7) and Petitioner No.3 (Accused No. 8) are concerned andpass
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R-S. ASSOCIATES ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG/AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2&3.
The Court made the following:
HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3939 of 2022
ORDER:
Heard Sri S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel, representing the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
t)r.CSL..l C r t. I,. ir o..l9-19 olj0ll
l
indicated in clear terms anC therclore, thc proceedings are liable to be quashcd
7 . l,earned Additional Public Prosecutor failed to state that the petitioners have knowledge about the supply of bottles for the purpose of diluting the liquor or for preparation of spurious liquor. Therefore, it cannot be held that petitioners have violated the terms and conditions of the licence. Further no reason is stated as to why the
Dr.CSl..J Crl.l'.No.i9l9 ol20ll
3
Distilleries compan-, was not arrayed as one of the accused. Having found no incremental material against the pctitioners, this Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process of Court. Therefore, this Court considers desirable to honour the request of the petitioners.
B. Rcsultantlv, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings that are pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.5i24 of 2019 pending on the file of the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise at L.B. Nagar are hereby quashed.
any, shall stand closed
Sd/- N. SRIHARI ASSISTANTREGISTRAR
I
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
HIGH COURT
DT.CSL,J
DATED:',510212023
ORDER
{ L slAIE c
.a
ct
\t\ $t<br>o 11
n
(.
, DE€ i.A1
I
CRLP.No.3939 of 2022
ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION
A)C"ptu/-l
DN
11 lozlro"o
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings instituted under Section 36(1)(i) and 34(2) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968 against the petitioners, who are license holders and directors, should be quashed for lack of evid
Whether the omission of the Distilleries company as an accused makes the proceedings against the named directors unsustainable.
Whether there is f ulfillment of material showing that petitioners knowingly allowed accused to supply liquor bottles for preparing spurious liquor.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Jasmit Singh Bagga
Ranbir Singh
Kuldeep Singh Bagga
State of Telangana
Chillakur Sumalatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
