Allowed

Saini Venugopal v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Sept 2024CRLP/7040/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for alleged offences under Prohibition and Excise Acts. The Court held that since the matter was squarely covered by a prior order (Crl. P. No. 15636 of 2013) which quashed proceedings based on Government advisories excluding jaggery, the present petition was disposed of by adopting the reasoning of that order.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioners in C.O.R. No. 11 of 2024 are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall also stand closed.

Saini Venugopal Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

1^338s1

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE^{NINETEENTHDAY OF SEPTI:MBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICE K. SUJI\NA}

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION^{NO 170400F 2024}

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 Saini Venugopal, S/o^{Rajeshwar' Aged43.yrs,.Occ.Businerss'Rio H No 2-81'} Adarshnaglr,' New^{Bus Stand, Chennur, tvlancherial'}

¶10

, Rathna Tirupathi Reddy,^{S/o Malla Reddy, Aged5'1 yrs, Occ Agriculture'R/o} H. No.5-'199, lqbal^{AHmed Nagar' Mancherial}

¶11

...PETITIONERS/AC'CUSED^{NOs'3 & 4}

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of^{Telangana,Repby its Public Prosecutor' HighCourt at.} ' iyO"trorO rhrorg"h SHO, -i.S.'Excise Kataram' Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.

¶14

RESPONDENT^NO.1

¶15

The Prohibition^{and Excise lnspector, Kataram, Jayashankar Bhupalpally} District.

¶16

,.,RESPONDENT NO.2/^{DEFACIO COMPLAINANT}

¶17

Petition under^{Section482 of Cr 'P C praying that in the circumstances} statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmayDe pleased to call for the records^{relatingto C O R No'1 I OF 2024on the file of the} irrohibition and^{Excise PS, Kataram,Jayashankar Bhupalpally District, against the} Petitioners/Accused^{Nos.3 and 4.}

¶18

t.A. NO :1 OF 2024

¶19

Petition under Section^{482 of Ct} 'P^{C praying that in the circumstances} statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition'theHighCourtmaybe pi"]."J tt grant stay of^{all further proceedings in C o R No'1 1 OF 2024on the} file of the Prohibition^{& Excise pS, fataram,Jayashankar Bhupalpally District} in-fuJing arrest^{of the Petitioners/AccusedNos 3 & 4 till the disposalof the} CriminaiPetition^{in the interest of the justiceand be pleased'}

¶20

{

¶21

^ This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing tlre Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri p LAKSHMA REDDY' Advocate for the petitioner and the i.rt proti. prosr:cutor on beharf of the Respondent No. 1, and of None appeared for the Respondent No. 2.

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE^{HONOURABLE SMT' JUSTICE K' SUJANA} CRIMINAL^{PETITION No'704O of 2024}

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The^{presentCriminal Petition is filedunderSection 482 of} Code^{of CriminalProcedure' 1973 (for short 'Cr'P'C'') to quash} the^{proceedings against the petitioners/ accused Nos'3 and 4 in} C.O.R.No.11^{of 2024 of Prohibition and Excise Police Station'} Kataram,^{JayashankarBhupalpally District' registered for the} offences Punishable^{under Section 7(a)read with 8(e) of the} Telangana^{Prohibition Act' 1995 and Section34(e) of the A'P} Excise^{Act, 1968'}

¶26

2 HeardSriP.LakshmaReddy,learnedcounselappearlng on behalf^{of the Petrtronersas well as Sri D' Arun Kumar'} learned^{Additional Public Prosecutor appearingon behalf of the} resPondents

¶27

¶28

J L,earned^{counsel for the petltlonerssubmittedthat the} matter^{is squarelycoveredby the order dated 04 O3'2O22 in} Criminal^{Petition No'15636 of 2O13and enclosed a copy of the}

said order.

L L.,

srs,J C|LP.No.7O4O o! 2024

¶33

Learn.ed Additional public prosecutor also submittecl that the issue in the present criminal petition is covered by the earlier order in the above criminal petition.

¶34

In view of the said representation and as the matter is squareiy co.rered by the order in the above criminal petition, this criminat petition is ailowed in terms of the above sztid order, adopting the reasoning contained therein. The proceedings against Lhe petitioners in C.O.R.No.11 OF 2024 ot prirhibition and Excise police Station, Kataram, Jayashankar Bhr-tpalpally District, are hereby quashed.

¶35

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this (jriminal Petition shall also stand closed.

¶36

SD/- V HARI PRASAD ASSISTANT REGIST,TAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1 The station House officer, prohibition and Excise rnspector, porice Station Kataram. Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.

¶41

2 One CC to SRt. P LAKSHMA REDDY, Advocate IOPUC]

¶42

TWO CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana. at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶43

4 Two CD Copies u/

HIGH COURT

DATED: 19109t2024

ORDER

CRLP.No.7040 of 2024

k oa THC SI '1 a(
..
L '(
(.)
1t lllt nZt
o o2
'1 A
a+

¶50

+:---?

¶51

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶52

4
l,-rt
F,,I
, ltt

¶53

¶54

TIIE HON'BLE^{Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA}

¶55

t i

¶56

CRIMINAL^{PETITIONNo'15636 of 2Ol3}

¶57

ORDER:

¶58

''! .
.{t ;
t .l
ti
t
1i,1'I .ri

¶59

Heard iearned^{counselfor the petitioner as well as} the learned^{AssistantPublicProsecutor'whois} representing^{the resPondent'}

¶60

Thisrcriminai^{Petition is filed underSection 482 of} Cr.P.C. seeking^{the Court to quash the proceedings that} are pending^against '^{the petitioner'who is arrayedas} accused.^{No.2 in C C.No'102of 2O13'which is pending on} i:a the fiIe of^{the Court oi J'diti'lMagistrate of First Class at} Armoor,^{NizamabadDistrict'}

-:,..*,^,i: I.i

Through^{the material produced' what couldbe} culminated^{and gathered by this Court is' that the Sub} Inspector^{of Policelfoi} 1^{Prohibition and Excise' Bheemgal'} charge Sheeted^{the petitioner and another alleging that} 'they coriimitted. offenle^{punishableunder Section 7-A rlw'} Section^{A(e) oi the f"ia.t'gtttt ProhibitionAct' 1995 as well}

¶65

l: ,.} t
"t. -l ,.t Irtr1
S{t l te1
,rta. .f a.i': ,:
cl I ..r ,.

¶66

.,..

¶67

¶68

Dr,lSL, J C.l.P No t:636 ot 2013

¶69

as under section 3a(e) of the Telanga.a Excise Act, 196g. The Court took cognizance of the narrated offences against both the accused and numbered the case as C.C.No.1O2 of 20 13 and commenced the proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner, who is accused No.2 in the said caiendar case, is before this Court

¶70

Thus, in the light of the afore_mentioned factual scenario, the point that emerges for consideration is:

¶71

Y?:!":,there^{eistsang justiJiabte grounds} to ,:1,,:: ,". lo*er granted under Section 482 ot tt.t...L. anct to quash the proceed_inqs - oendin'n" 7s 2i::, . ^t!e -^{pe titio n.r) a""u". i-"} rdr:;" ;"" :.^{L..rvo. t U2 oJ- 20 j 3 on the} rtte of the Court of Judiciat Magistrate of First Ct"rii i.r.".r|" "t

¶72

The case of the respondent/complainant, as could be perceived through the contents of the charge sheet, rs that on 27.06.2072 on receipt of reliable information regarding illegal distiltation and sale of ID liquor by some persons at Santhoshnagar Thanda of Bheemgal Mandal, the E:.cise officia-ls accompanied by the panch witnesses proceeded to the said place and traced the smell of ID liquor conring

¶73

¶74

Dr.CSL, J Crl.P.No^15636or20l3

¶75

¶76

r*lsi I 1 trlⁱ .i ltt 1t :": .,&&.,it . ,

¶77

al: a

¶78

from a^{house and, therefore,they enteredinto the said} house and^{during search,they found two big mud vats} '! buried underneath^thJ I^{ground,whichwere frlled with black} ., l which in^{turn would be} jaggery ald alum^{for fermentation'} On enquiry,^the Person used for^{distillation of ID liquor'} present therein^{revealedhis identityparticulars'The said} person further^{revealedthat he is manufacturingand} selling ID^{liquor for'his livelihood and he is purchasing raw} materialusedfordistillationoflDliquori'e''blackJaggery from the Petitioner^herein'

¶79

i.l 's..,a ,,*r *. 5l lr7 I.l

¶80

'..sY r.7 .i. 1. ,

¶81

Thus,^{the p"'!ot'from whose possession' the} t fermented^jalgery i<sup>wal seizedand the personfromwhom the black^{jaggery was purchasedby the said personare} 'I arrayed^{as AccusedNos'1 and 2' respectiveiy'} ,.. :

¶82

Making his^{submissions' learned counselfor the} petitioner^{contendedthat the petitioner' who is arrayedas} accused^{No.2, is runninga KiranaStore and thoughhis} involvement^{inthe allegedcrime is nil"he was falsely} implicated in^{this case and, therefore'he approachedthis} t ,.tlit ',. ,rtti'. .;,-'l '.' 'i :': ,,,.... ,ttI t.", gt{, I i:^; '' I *il dl. .: ar i. .!' : tii $+ ,1 t{lt, *ry.ti I .- ,&r$. iri.i., ':..^a ffiF{S:}} [jt 'r ? I I r^' : iET I if'^:

¶83

{r. 5. i a-,&lt] t J-,t

¶84

¶85

Dr.(lSL, J Crl.P.No.15636 of 2013

¶86

Court seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further con.tended that selling of black jaggery ald a_lum by itself 1s not an offence and even as per the version of the prosecution, the petitioner was only selling black jaggery and alum in his shop and., therefore, continuation of proceedings against him shoutd not be permitted.

¶87

On the other hand, the learned Assistant public Prosecutor contended that the involvement of the petitioner,/{6sused No.2 is found and though ht: was prohibited to sell the materiai that is used in manufacturing of ID liquor, he was selling the same, and, therefore, he is liable for prosecution.

¶88

During the course of hearing, learned counsel f<rr the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court, the proceedings issued by the Government of Andhra pradesh in Memo No.4T8O2/Ex.III.1/2006_13, dated 20.r2.2OIO. Placing reliance on the said memo, rearned counser for the petitioner r:ontended that possession of black jaggery or

¶89

? I : I

¶90

¶91

Dr-CSL, J Crl P No.t5636 of20I3

¶92

¶93

tr.t 'i.: .i*

¶94

'.. sds.^{:.1 :} the same r does not fall^within the^{purview of} 3. Section 2 of the^{Telangana Excise Act,} 1968. For^the 1i $.. i. .:L: r.B ,:*'.{Purpose. oi analysis 1^{and continuationof discussion in a} fruitful manner,^{thecontentsof the said memo,are} ;Ii: extracted as^under:

¶95

'"The attenltion^{of theCommission.er} .^of

¶96

.lp.ot ibttio.t and Eicise,^{A.P', Hyderatrad is invitedto}

¶97

"l t it " ..ir*""te 1"t iited, wherein he has sent proposal

¶98

,^{ioi l.tctusio.t of RottenJaggeryurrderdefinition of} I material in A.P. Excise Act, "1968 so as to^ensure effective control^{of ID arrack crime and to improve} Government^Reveilue. '.i

¶99

., 1 i], :i^,' t r1 {,t,{',ii 'a aa ':l -l l i{.1 l, 11 i i.

¶100

. 2...^{, Governm".rt} "ft".^{careful examination of the} '' matter,''l hereby decided that Black Jaggery or Rotten Jaggery^{or any otherform of Jaggery are} viewed as"-agricuiture^{produceor its bi-products} "nJ^{i.t"t r"ii,of the same inthe list of the}

¶101

. 'materials' used in^{the manufactureof ID liquor}

¶102

; mav adversely aJIect the^{interest of genuineryots} ,rri tn. trad;is.+^{Hence,' it was decidednot to} impose restriction^{on any agricultureproduce'} particuiarlY on^Jaggery'

¶103

t. €"& i.

¶104

.i. .,

¶105

J. Hence, the ProP^{osal to include rotten jaggery} under dehnition^{of 'material'tt/s' 2 of A.P.Excise} not been'^{accePted bythe}

¶106

Act, 1968^hasl

¶107

"t l i..^; Government.' f I I r,? .,, ., II .a .. i," lr6 10.^{:.sectiont1r,F"l} Telairgana^{,Excise Act, 1968deftnes} .'):i certain words.^Sectionl' 2 (22A\ of^{the Telangana Excise Act,} t; t+1 u -4. .. t:,:. 1 it'.' t;: at.t'lr: ! .;1 .,t l* ,l r : r,? , :,' 't^.. 1:':: .i ''. .1t at_ $. , I it} .?t i^' ,t-.3t n li {, ffi,ii,l

¶108

¶109

¶110

DT CSL, J Crl. P. r."o_ 1 ;636 of 2Ot3

¶111

1968 says what the word^{,,materia_1,,} includes. It 1a1r5 dsv/n i': as under ,,^:' : I' i i'.t, f- { I iq1, )..1! " rnoteiaf includes molasses, wash and such other sutrstances as the State C"""..r-."t , rn"V,^"lry .i. notification, speci$/; : ' ,;:^'. ,: t 1 1. Thus, it is clear that the word .,l,material, irrcluo':l*'ix tli molasses, wash and such other fI substances as the d i I ,, State Government may by notification, specify. l3y the *i Memo referred supra, the Government has decidr:d not l to impose restrictions on any agricultural produce, particularly on jaggey, black jaggery or rotten jiggery, in the j list of materials used in the manufacture of ID liqu or, as the Gover.nment opined that inciusion of the same may adversely affect the interest of the genuine ryots ald the , irtraders. It has clearly indicated that the proposal to tnclude i *# rotten jaggery under definition ,material, under Section 2 of rlt 1''.;ii the Telangana Excise Act, 196g, j therefore, was not t..l. accepted by the Government. Thus, it is clear that the 'il petitioner, who is running a General Store, being in possession of Jaggery, does not mean that he has

¶112

¶113

t --{, .["t. ,.,i'$..: .,t;.

¶114

7 {

¶115

Dr.CSL, J Crl P.No.15636^oI2013

¶116

...: ,. r,

¶117

; ,committedanoffencepunishableunderSection34(e)ofthe ! ,,, Telangana^{Excise Act,} 968 ,: .{i 4..t: r t,l:{ :a.. il .ti i i: <! '.^:',12. ' sictioni 34 of tle ,.T.lu.nga.ra^{Excise Act lays down} 6r {.t Ii I ti 1.i t^I x, ::l ipenaltY'.^{for illegal i} inlport,^{export etc- of the prohibited} :l d- it :lr att". 'il'-. material mentioned the.ei., i1^{without any license or permit'} ' '' ,.:i+rt : ' .r. ;Section"34(e) :p9nafiz,=!^tht '"t,^{keepingin possession any} material,^{stills, ut6nsils, implements orapparatus} 1}: l i .;...whatsoever for !|ij n"n"tt^{ofmanufacturingany} "'&'{,^:'i intoxicant^{otherthani toddy. As': earlier discussed, black} ; .i;; .^jaggery '^{does not faLl within the term 'material" as} { i, I .i.enumerated under Sebtion^{2 (22A) of the TelanganaExcise} - i 6annot^{be held that the Petitioner} ( ,1 x.Ii3i ., , n"t, 1968. Therefore, Jt .1 a \li ' offdnce as hia^{down underSection 34(e)} &.. i ,^{lhas committed an} !. I I';^L i' ' '-'tof the said Act. . , i ',1 . i ' '^{.: l' :13,;} l.CominE^{to the contents of TelanganaProhibitionAct'} 1965, the^{version iof the respondent is thatthe} ri' :1..'] '.oetitioner/Accused.Nti.2hascommittedoffencepunishable .d*.siid .' ,' i* tri^,"t, +i;.h' under Sectio,^{7-A"fi#tt;tid;ie("toi tht Ttl'r,g*^} t ,rprohibition Act,^{1995. Section 7-A of the Telargana} l' : i ra , l. I i^l' I . ' '.,^i, ;l , $ a !lrll"i^liI tlr1 ',,S d ..:,1 l'j '-{^:i . i, i::,-l ; .tl' .:ji '1..tE'1 i{;lr ,l ..,. tt^': :r l' ; :..: .1 '. ,l .It-i :. .:.. , :: I :l

¶118

1}: l i "'&'{,^:'i ; .i;; {

¶119

¶120

8 1 DT,CSL, J : .t' Crl.P.No. 1r;636 of 2Ot3 {i ',.: l'' if{i lir':' t i Prohibition Act, 1995 prohibits production ; manufacture, -lt^ql' .i :* . !l storage, possession, :!. : ! collection, qurch ase, sale^. a-nd | 1.. transportation of arrack. Section B(e) of the Telangana .I, Prohibition Act, 1995 envisages that the persorr, who 'ii :r .-, contravenes the provision of Section;7 .rA^{of the Telarrgala} Prohibition Act, 1995 be punished wiir, i-pit"6rr-entli;r; f,: jr :,,,*t.S$ term, which shall not be less than one year, but whir:h may extend upto eight years ald with fine, which shaii not be less than rupees two lakhs. 'i ,**,

¶121

'i ,**, {i f? il i,

¶122

It is not the version ofthe Excise officials, even as per the contents of the charge sheet, that the petitioner was found in the process of producing, manufacturing, st.oring, possessing, collecting, selling or transporting arrack. Therefore, he will not fall within the ambit of Section 7_A of the Telangana prohibition Act, 1995, for which punishment ls prescribed under Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibitiorr Act, 199 5.

¶123

''s

¶124

Thus, in the light of afore_mentioned discussion that went on rr:garding the merits of tJle case and the tegal

¶125

;i stra'j |". ,ii,: tat' ;

¶126

.r .a'

¶127

:.'.'

¶128

Dr CSL, J Crl P No.I5636^{of 20132013}

¶129

;1 Crl P No.I5636^{of 20132013} position involved,'f lCiiurt'unhesitatingly^{holds that} .tat {: 1S taking co^{gnruance:,agalnst the petitioner bY the Court} .t:i Iri unjustifiable^{and,theiefore, it amounts to abuse of process} ,.1 . 1. ,! ird* $.$/s;tr .r ,.1^{;.'r{ f} ) "'

¶130

jj s.ll,qs . 1. ,! ird* $.$/s;tr .r ,.1 .r ) ':: ird* $.$/s;tr .r $.$/s;tr .r^{;.'r{ f} "' 16. Resultantly,^{this Criminal Petitionis allowed'The} .,..':' ','.i proceedings 1 that:'.lar6 '^{pending:'againstthe petitioner/} i1I .l : '' ,.'ri ,.'^j':r !R"cui.d no'tZ'iti,p.C'iio'102 "^{of;2013 on the file of the} .,, .. ''i l{. i ; lriCourt of ;uaiiial^{uJgis'irate'of' First Class'Armoor' are} 'l ;': .! ; ': * i^'. 1^"'' i-.hereby^{(uashed.t l, :l:} 1',: {ji r.^',. i -:'1, : ii I ' 17. As a sequel,^{miscellaneous} )^{applications pending'if} ,2. ''!any; iriallstand^cloied' :^:i.;r " ,i

¶131

l ,i ?a ,& ,-ft * it. ;. iF.s{ .f$.{ ;,:l ^r S^a-"E l --^{:$ ...? tr..tt$} ., .i r Dri CHILLAKUR^SUMALATHA'J :;._ 'a ...l '.,t'. Date: O4.O3.2022. NOTE:^{L-R.CoPY be marked i} .I:.. (B/o) . .,i . Msr..a^. ; l: r 'ri :, :i a{,^r' :. -.r: rlt i.

¶132

¶133

.::.' r' i. r' , .t' ':8::,};l 5|{E.* .rii,. :i ,1' . .xt l '}}1.. . ',1.. ..r, ., tl; ,,. '.'1, rll &^4w ri:. tr..'il,

Saini Venugopal v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saini Venugopal 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

Management of South Glass Company Vs The State of Telangana

Kishore Singh Vs The State of Telangana

Thota Venu Vs The State of Telangana

Eranolla Lokeshwara Vs Sat Yalamanchili

Jolapally Praveen Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd Osman Qureshi Vs The State of Telangana