Dismissed

Rahul Singh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Sept 2024CRLP/6604/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed four criminal petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings against a licensed liquor vendor for alleged violation of the Telangana State Excise Act, 1968 regarding the sale of excess liquor to an unlicensed person.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petitions Cr.P.C. Nos. 6602 to 6605 of 2024 were dismissed; proceedings against the petitioner were not quashed.

Rahul Singh Vs The State of Telangana — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2024)

[^338s I

t I I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶7

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶10

CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 6602. 6603. 6604^{& 6605 0F 2024}

¶11

CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO: 6602^{of 2024:}

¶12

Between:

¶13

Rahul Singh, S/o. Late. Lakshman^{Singh Aged a,boyl q3 years, Occ.Business,} R/o. H.No. 13-6-8181A123, Langer House,^{Golconda, Hyderabad}

¶14

.-.Petitioner/Accused No.2

¶15

AND

¶16

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor,^{High court for the state} of Telangana.

¶17

...Respondent

¶18

2 Y.Raru, S/o.Not known to^petitioner, Aged Major,^{Occ. Sub-lnspector of} Policir, SHO Lunger House P.S, Hyderabad.

¶19

...RespondenUComPlai nant

¶20

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the I\Iemorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition, the HighCourt may be} pleased to quash the proceedings against the^{petitioner/accusedNo. 2 in Cr.No 70} of 2024 on the file SHO, Langer House P.S.,^Hyderabad.

¶21

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024

¶22

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 maybe} pleased to stay all further proceedings against the^{petitioner/accused No. 2 in Cr.} No. 70 of 2024 on the file SHO, Langer House^{P.S., Hyderabad.}

¶23

CRIM INAL^{PETITION NO: 6603 of 2024 :}

¶24

Between:

¶25

Rahul Sinqh, S/o.^{Late. LakshmanSingh Ageda.bout33 years' Occ Business'} 'di;:"i.Xil:i'!-o-si aA'r):, Lrng"i Hous6, Go-lconda, Hvderabad'

¶26

...Petitioner/Accused^No.2

¶27

AND

¶28

l.TheStateofTelangana,RepbyitsPublicProsecutor'Highcourtforthestate of Telangana

¶29

...ResPondent

¶30

Y.Raiu. S/o.Not^{known to petitioner.Aged Major' Occ' Sub-lnspectorof} Polica. SHO Lunqer^{House P.S. Hyderabad'}

¶31

,.RespondenUComPlainant

¶32

PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances StatedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmaybe pi."s"o to quash the^{proceedingsagainstthe petitioner/accusedNo. 2 in cr.No.69} Lt ZoZq on the^{file SHO, Langer House P S . Hyderabad'}

¶33

l.A. I'lO: 20F²⁰²⁴

¶34

PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmaybe pi""reo to stay all further^{proceedings agatnst the petitioner/ accused No. 2 in cr.} fuo. OS ot 2o2i on^{the file SHO. Langer HouseP S', Hyderabad'}

¶35

CRTIIIIINAL PE TITION^{NO: 6604 of 2024:}

¶36

Between:

¶37

Rahul Singh,^{S/o. Late.Lakshman.SinghAged about} Q3^{y9ar9, Occ' Business'} ii6. H. N"li a-o^{-81 I I At23.La nger Hous6,Golconda, Hyderabad'}

¶38

...Petitioner/Accused^No.2

¶39

AND

¶40

1 The State of Telangana,^{Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High court for the stale} of Telangana.

¶41

...Respondent

¶42

,,2 Y.Raiu. S/o.Not known^{to petrtroner.Aged Major,Occ. Sub-lnspector of} Policb, SHO Lunger^{House P.S. Hyderabad.}

¶43

...Res PondenUComPlainant

¶44

Petition under sectaon⁴⁸² 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 quash the proceedings against the^{petitioner/accusedNo. 2 in cr.No.53} of 2024 on the file SHO,^{Langer House P.S , Hyderabad.}

i l l l l I I I

l.A. NO:2 oF²⁰²⁴

/ /

Petitionundersection4S2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the^{Memorandumof Groundsol criminalPetition,the High court mav !e} pi"r."o to stay all further^{proceedings against the petitioner/ accused No. 2 in cr.} ZOZi on the^{file SHO, Langer House P'S', Hyderabad'} [i". SS "t

¶49

CRIMI NAL^{PETITION NO: 6605 ot 2024:}

¶50

Between:

¶51

Rahul Sinqh, S/o.^{Late. LakshmanSingh Aged about 33 years'Occ Business'} iid H Xil:ii-6-araA/zs.^{r-unser Hous6,Golconda, Hvderabad'}

¶52

...Petitioner/Accused^No.2

¶53

AND

¶54

I The State of^{Telangana'Rep by its Public Prosecutor'High court for the state} of Telangana.

¶55

...ResPondent

¶56

2 Y Raiu. S/o.Not known to^{petitioner,Aged Major' Occ' Sub-lnspector of}

¶57

poriiij. Suo Lunqer House P S' Hyderabad'

¶58

.RespondenUCom Plainant

¶59

Petition under^{Section 482 ot Cr'P} 'C^{prayingthat in the circumstances} Statedinthel\ilemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to^{quash tne proceedings against-the petitioner/accusedNo 2 in Cr'No 54} iiioz+ on^{the file SHb, Langer House P S" Hyderabad'}

¶60

l.A. NO:2 oF²⁰²⁴

¶61

Petition under^{Sectron482 of Cr'P} 'C^{prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in^{the r,4emorandumof Groundsof criminalPetition,the High courtmay !e} oleased to stav^{all further proceedings againstthe petitioneri accusedNo 2 in Cr'} it.s+ "r ioz+ "n the file SHo,^{Langer House P'S , Hyderabad'}

¶62

This Pelitions^{comrngon for hearing, upon perusing the Memoranciumof} Grounds of^{CriminalPetationand upon hearing the argumentsof Sri T BalaMohan} Reddy, Advocate^{for lhe Petitionerand Sri S Ganesh' Assistant Public Prosecutor} on behalf^{of the RespondentNo 1 and None appeared for the Respondent No 2 in} all cases.

¶63

The Court made^{the following:COMMONORDER}

¶64

----7 // I C

¶65

THE TIONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.66O2, 66o3, 66o,4 & 6605 of 2024

¶66

COMMON ORDER:

¶67

Since the issue involved in all these criminal petitions is one and the same, they are being heard together and are being decided by way of this common order.

¶68

These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/ accused No.2 in Crime Nos.53, 54, 69 and 70 ot 2024 of Langer House Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 3a (A) of the Telangana State Excise Act, 1968 (for short'the Act').

¶69

The brief facts of thc cases are that respondent No.2/complainant, who is the Sub-lnspector of Police, on receipt of credible information that some persons are selling IMFL bottles at Kalidaspura, Langer House, without any valid license or permit from concerned authorities, he along with his staJl rushed to the said place and tound that IMFL bottles were selling to the needy customers at high rates.

¶70

¶71

¶72

sxs,J CrLP.No.66O2 o! 2024 dnd bo;tch

¶73

il illt II ti il il i f I , :.

¶74

Later, respondent No.2 recorded the confessional _ cum _ seizure panchanama of accused No.l in all the cases, wherein, they confessed that they used to purchase the liquor bottles of various brands from Bhavani Wines shop owner at wholesale rates in bulk and sell the same at high rates. Thereafter, in the presence of mediators, the police conducted confessional panchanama and also seized the illicit liquor bottles. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered the cases.

¶75

Heard Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the rcspondents in all the cases.

¶76

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the ow.ner of Bhavani Wines having license holder to sell the liquor, as such, selling of liquor to customers does not attract the offence as alleged by the respondents. t{e further submitted that the sale undertaken by the pcritioncr is with licence and each bottle which is being sold is u.ith distinct number of license holder shop. He further submitted that the contents of FIR do not

¶77

¶78

¶79

sr(s.J CrLP.No.66O2 o! 2024 a^d batch

¶80

I i

¶81

state anJrthing about the act of the petitioner, which constitute an offence under Section 34(a) of the Act. Even if the statement made in the FIR and the alleged confession of accused No.l are considered, the same also do not attract the said offence. The subsequent act of the purchaser from the licensed vendor cannot implicate the license holder for sale in his hands. Therefore, he prayed the Court ro quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶82

On the other hand, learned Assistanr i\blic Prosecutor appearing for t]'e respondents submitted that the name of the petitioner was revealed by acclrsed No. 1, therefore, he is also liable for the punishmen t and the matter is under investigation, as such, praved ttrc Court to dismiss the petitions.

¶83

In the light of the submissions made b5 both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material a'ailable on record, the main allegation against the petir ioner is that with the help of accused No. I in all the cases, he is running belt shop with excess rates to the needl. people. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitiotrer is that

I : I

srs,J CiLP-No.66O2 ol2024 a d^bd'trh

¶88

I I I I I

¶89

the petitioner is a licensed^{holder to sell the liquor, as such,} Section 34(a) of the Act^{doesnot attract.}

¶90

At this stage, it is^{pertinent to note Section34 (a) of} ttre Telangana State^{Excise Act, 1968:}

¶91

"34. Penalties^{for illegalimport'} export etc. :-^{Whoever,in contraventionof} this Act or of an1' rule,^{notification or order} made, issued or^{passed thereunder or of} any licence or^{permit granted orissued} under this Act,^-

¶92

(a) imports, exPorts, transports, manufactures, collects or^{possessesor sellsanY} intoxicant; or"

¶93

g. The above section^{says that whoeverimports,exports,}

¶94

transports, manufactures,^{collects or possessesor sellsany} intoxicants without any^{license ispunishableforthe} punishment under Section^{34(a) of the Act' In the present} case, admittedly,^{the petitioner is a liccnsed'holder and he is} selling the liquor^{to the unlicensedholder-}

¶95

A perusal of^{the confessional statementof accused} No.1 reveals that he^{is buying the liquor from the petitioner} at wholesale rates^{and selling the sameto the customers}

¶96

¶97

¶98

sxs,J CiLP.No-66O2 oJ 2024 t td b<,tch

1 I

I I

i i I I I I I I

who are needy at higher rates. Further, one of the condition imposed by tJ.e License for the sa-le of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Foreigrr Liquor by shop, reads as under:

¶104

"The privilege extends to the sale of atl kinds of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Foreign Liquor which can be sold for remova-l from the licensed premises in sealed receptacles in quantities rrot exceeding 6 Quarts in respect of Indian Made Foreigrr Liquor and Foreign Liquor other tian Beer and 12 bottles in respect of Beer in one trar:rsaction to an unlicensed person."

¶105

I 1. Further, a perusal of the license sholvs that the license holder can sale tJ'e liquor not exceeding 6 Quarts in respect of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Foreign Liquor other than Beer and 12 bottles in respect of Beer in one transaction to an unlicensed person. In the present case, the petitioners have sold excess liquor, i.e., Kingfisher I I bottles, Down Town 6 bottles, Ofhcer Choicc 6 ( I 8oml) bottles and 8 (90 mU bottles total 31 bottles respcctively in each case, to the unlicensed person and violated thc provisions of law. Thereiore, there are serious allegations against the petitioners, which require trial, Hcnce, rhis Court does not find any merit in the Criminal Pctitions ro

¶106

¶107

SKS.J CiLP.No.66O2 of 2024 aftd bo]t h

¶108

¶109

quash the proceedings against the petitioner and the same

¶110

are liable to be dismissed.

¶111

Accordingly, these Criminal petitions are dismissed.

¶112

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also

¶113

stand closed.

¶114

Sd/. P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

40._--sEcnotgdFFtcER

To,

1 - The Vl Additional Chief Metropolitan lvlagistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶120

The Station House Officer, Lunger House Police Station, Hyderabad.

¶121

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

¶122

One CC to Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶123

Two CD Copies

Svs/gh

alr

i I

I i i I

j I

HIGH COURT

DA,TED:0610912024

tnE STAI
,(
t
-) 0 2 L:L zMl a2
L L
\i,",
!t--t'n

¶132

COMMON ORDER

¶133

CRLP.Nos.6602,6603,6604 & 6605 of 2024

¶134

DISMISSING ALL THE CRLPs

¶135

6t(v"
$'

Rahul Singh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Keshal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Nooty Ramamohana Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Manjur Basha Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Erlapally Susheela Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs.Mysore Mohini Andal Vs The State of Telangana

Alugubelli Sarojana Vs the State of Telangana