Allowed

Mr. Ghanshyamdas Karwa v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Sept 2024CRLP/10913/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition filed to quash proceedings against the petitioner for alleged involvement in manufacturing illicit liquor via black jaggery transport. The court quashed the case relying on a prior order from 2020 that established mere possession or sale of black jaggery does not attract the relevant excise offences.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 5652 of 2022 registered before the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar are quashe

Mr. Ghanshyamdas Karwa Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGAhIA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TI-{IRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10913 OF 2024

¶6

Betvveen:

¶7

Mr. Ghanshyamdas Karwa, S/o. Late Harikishan Karwa, A-o ed 52 years, Occ Business, Rl o. 1 4-7 -392, Begum Bazaar, Hyderabad.

¶8

...PETITIONE R/ACCUSED NO.4

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

¶11

RESPONDENT

¶12

The Prohibition and Excise, SubJnspector, Shamshabad,^ll R. District

¶13

...RESPONDENT/ DEFAC'.-O-COMPLAINANT

¶14

Petition under Section 528 BNSS of Cr.P.C^prrying that^inthe circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Cri'ninal^Petiticn,the High Court may be pleased to quash CC. No. 5652 of 2022 rcfore the^Judtcral First Class Magistrate Cum Xll M.M. at L.B. Nagar, R.R- Distr ct in the interest^of .justice

¶15

l.A. NO: 'l OF 2024

¶16

Petition under Section 528 BNSS^praying that in the c^{rcumstancesstated} in the lr'lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the ligh Court^{ma/ be} pleased to stay all further proceedings including persona. attendance of the petitioner in CC. No, 5652 of 2022 before the Judicial First C ass Magistrate^Cum Xll lU.M. at L.B. Nagar, R.R. District^pending disposal^of lre^{present Criminal} Petition.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing t^{re Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the^{argumen.sof Sri DAMODAR} MUNDRA. Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Proseculor^{on behalf of the} Respondent No.^'l , and None appeared for the Respondent^{Nt,. 2}

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

/ ,1

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SMT.^{JUSTICE K. SUJANA} CRIMINAL PETITION No.1O913 of 2024

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Petition is hled under Section⁵²⁸ Bharatiya Na3arik Suraksha Sanhita^{(for short BNSS')to} quash the proceedings against the^{petitioner/accused No'4 in} C.C.No.5652 of 2022 on the hle of the^{Special JudicialFirst} Class Magistrirte -cum- Metropolitan Magistrate,^{Ranga Reddy} District at L..3. Nagar, registered for the offence^punishable under Sections 34(e) read with 34(2),^13(1Xf) and42(cl^{of T.S.} Excise Act, 1968.

¶24

Heard Sri Damodar Mundra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri^{E.Ganesh, learned} Assistant Pr-Lblic Prosecutor appearing on behalf^of respondents S;tate.

¶25

As per t1e prosecution, the petitioner herein along with other accused was transporting black^jaggery for the^purpose of manufactlrr ing illicit liquor.

¶26

4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the petitioncr is only selling^jaggery alum as merchant at Begum

¶27

¶28

Bazar, Hyderabad. Learned^{counselfurther subrnitted that} mere selling of black^jag8"ry do^{not attractany offence} punishable under Section 34(e) read^{with 3a(2), 13(l)(f) and} 42(cl of T.S. Excise Act, 1968,^{in view of tlee earlier order} passed by this Court in Criminal Petition^{No-3544 of 2O2O.} Therefore, he would submit^{that the petitioner is similarly} placed and thereby prayed to^quash the^{proceedings against} the petitioner in C.C.No.5652^{of 2022 on the frle of the Special} Judicial First Class Magistrate^{-cum-Metropolitan} Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District^{at L.B.Nagar.}

¶29

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor^opposedthe Crimina-l Petition stating that the^{petitionerwas doing} business of black^j aggery from^{more than four decades.As} such, it is not a fit case to^{quashand thereby prayed for} dismissal of the Criminal^Petition.

¶30

In view of the above submissions, this^{CriminalPetition} is allor.r,ed in terms of Criminal Petition^{No.3544 of 2O2O} ' adopting the reasoning contained therein.^{The proceedings} against the petitioner in C.C.No.5652^{of 2022 on the file of the} Special Judicial First Class Magistrate^{-cum- Metropolitan}

¶31

¶32

Magistrate,^{Rarrga Reddy Districtat L'B'Nagar' are hereby} quashed.

¶33

,^{if any, in this Criminal} Pending^{rniscellaneouspetitions}

¶34

Petition "hull^{.t.o stand closed'}

¶35

3is;[,fit'l$1!^o I , t)

¶36

//TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶37

To,

¶38

1 The Judicial^{First Class MagistrateCum Xll M M at L'B Nagar'R'R'} District

¶39

2 The Station^{HouseOfficer' Shamshabad PoficeStation'ShamshabadR R} District

¶40

3 One CC^{to SFl. DAMODAR MUNDRA' Advocate [OPUCI} 4 Two CCs^{to tl. e Publrc Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶41

E Two CD CoPit:s

¶42

¶43

i I I i I i i I i l ! I I I il iriili ilil i

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1310912024

ORDER

CRLP.No.10913 of 2024

¶48

I L,
6-, e
.s lr
o s* -(
U-
,t +
urt+ *'

¶49

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶50

¶51

TITE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SUREITDER c ON No.3544 of 20.20

¶52

ORDER:

¶53

This Criminal Petition was filed by the petitioner/A5 to quash the.C.O.R No.St/2O2O on the file of prohibition & Excise sub-Inspector' shamshabad porice station, Ranga Reddy District. The offence alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 34(e) of r/w. 13(l)(f), a2@) of the T.S.Excise Act, 1968.

¶54

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional public prosecutor for the 1"t respondent_State. 3. The Shamshabad prohibition and Excise personnel caught Al for transportation of Jaggery and Alum. According to Al, the said Black Jaggery was purchased from this petitioner (A3). 4. The Government of A.p. vide Memo No.4ZSO2/Ex.III, 7/2006.13, dated 20. t2.2O1O has refused to impose any ban or restriction of Black Jaggery or Jaggery. In the said circumstances, the proceedings cannot be permitted to continue against the petitioner.

¶55

Accordingly, the Criminal petition ls a-llowed and the proceedings againsr the petitioner in c.o.R No.51/20200n the Iile

¶56

¶57

¶58

ofProhibition&ExciseSub-Inspector,ShamshabadPolice

¶59

Station, Ranga Reddy^{District,are hereby quashed'}

¶60

As a seqrrel,^{miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall}

¶61

stand closed.

¶62

K.SURENDER, J

¶63

Date: OL.O2.2024 tk

Mr. Ghanshyamdas Karwa v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Ghanshyamdas Karwa v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Methari Uma Rani, Avishipally Uma Rani Vs The state of Telengana and 2 others

Akber Khan Vs The State Of Telangana

Bathini Chandu Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Advaith Bio-fuels Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Koorapati Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana

Sri.K. Srinivasulu Vs The State of Telangana