Disposed

Smt. T.Bharathi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Mar 2024WP/6534/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition challenging the seizure of black jaggery by excise authorities. The court held that seizure requires reasonable belief of intent to manufacture liquor and directed the petitioner to seek release of seized goods via a specific application under the Excise Act to the Deputy Commissioner of Excise.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Deputy Commissioner of Excise under Section 46 of the Act for release of seized goods within two weeks.

Smt. T.Bharathi Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 6534 OF 2024

¶7

lletween:

¶8

Smt. T.Bharathi, Wo K.Venkatapathi, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Business, Prop. M/s Venkateswara Traders, D.No. 7-65, Chinna Mittoor village, Penumuru Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Deputy Commissioner, Proh. and Excise Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. The Station House Officer, Noothankal Police Station, Suryapet District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Wnt, Order or Drrection, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondentⁱⁿ not orders directing the 3rd respondent to release the stocks i.e., i.e.,^'1 30 bags of black^jaggery each containing 50 Kgs., seized in F.l.R.No. 10 of 2024 dt. 61212024, inspite of the readiness of the^petitioner to furnish the^personal bond equivalent to the worth of the stocks, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and c;onsequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue orders to the 3rd respondent to release the stocks.

¶15

IA NO :1^{0F 2024}

¶16

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatintheCirCUmstanCesstated ia the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the High Court maybe pleasedto} clirect the 2nd^{respondentto issue orders directingthe 3rd respondent herein to} release the^{stocks i.e-, 130 bags of blackjaggeryeach containing 50 Kgs} '^worth crf Rs.^'1 ,30,OOO/-^{seized in F.l.R.No.10 of 2024 d| 612t2024'by accepting the} grersonal bond,^{pending disposalof the main Writ Petition'}

¶17

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRIS.PRASAD BABU}

¶18

CounselfortheRespondentNo.l&2:GPFORPROHIBITION&EXCISE

¶19

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME}

¶20

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶21

,-'n" y/

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITI ON No.6534 of2024

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The case of the petitioner is that she is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of the black jaggery and other kirana items in the nzune and style of M/s. Venkateswara Traders and had obtained valid licence from the Agricultural Marketing Department uide Licence No.C/l/2O22-27, dated 24.06.2022, which is valid upto 31.03.2017. It is the further case of the petitioner that he had sold 130 bags of blackjaggery each bag containing 50 kgs. to Maa Durga Traders, Kurita Chattisgarh and loaded the same in Lorry bearing No.Ap 29 TA 77Sg uide blll of supply, dated 04.02.2024 and during the transit when the said vehicle was reached near Bhikkumalla Village, respondent No.3 intercepted the village. It is the further case of the petitioners that the said Iorry, along with jaggery, was seized and seized the vehicle, along with the stocks, in Crime NO.l0 of 2024, registered for the offence

¶25

%*l .\

¶26

)

¶27

punishable under Section 34^(e) of^{the Telangana State} Excise Act, 1968^(for short^{"the Act").}

¶28

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner has vehemently} contended that mere transportation/^{possession of black} jaggery is not an offence and the same is not^prohibited under the provisions of the^{Act and the Rules made} thereunder. Learned counsel^{further contendedthat the} authorities have conferred^{power to seize the black jiggery} in the event of reason to believe that^{the biackjiggery is} being used for manufacturing l.D.liquor^{and much reliance} as been placed by the learned counsel^{for the petitioner in} Full Bench Judgment of this Court in^{Go,nesh Traders} (Kirana and General Merchants),^Dhennapuri, Karimnagar Dlstrict u. District Collector,^Karimnagar and. othersr. Learned counsel for the^{petitioner further} submits that the Government has issued Circular^Memo No.47 8O2 I Ex.lll. I / 2006^- 13, dated 20. 12.20 lO^whereinthe specific instructions have been issued to the^authorities that black jiggery or rotten^jiggery or any other form of

1 zooz (1) ALD 210

jiggery are likely to be agricultural produce or its bioproducts are not to be seized merely on the ground that the black jiggery is being transported, if the same is accompanied by valid documents.

¶33

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise contends that the petitioner, taking advantage of trade licence, is storing, transporting and selling black jaggery without disclosing the details of purchasers and is not producing monthly statement and waybills and thus petitioner has violated the licence conditions and Excise Rules.

¶34

In Gcnesh Traders case (1 supra) a Full Bench of this

¶35

Court observed as under:-

¶36

"4 1. We may, however, hasten to add that unless the Commissioner, Collector, Police Officer or competent Excise Olficer "has reason to believe" that black^jaggery is intended to manufacture ID liquor mere keeping and/or transporting any other material cannot be violation of law. In such arr event, it is always open to the accused to prove before the competent criminal Court that black jaggery was material intended not for manufacture of liquor but was intended for other purpose. The learned cqgn_s-el for the petitioners have not placed before us any

¶37

!--\r-\ t;r

¶38

¶39

cvidcnce/ material to show that black jaggery can also bc used for other purposes. Be that as it may they only submitted that black jagg..y or jaggery with which they were dealing was not intended for manufacturing liquor. In W.P.No. 354 of 20Ol and W.P.No. 22705 of 2OO0 the learned Government Pleader has placed before us the report of the chemical examiner, which shows that thc matcrial scized from the petitioners contains debris, sar-rd and other injurious substances.

¶40

52(b). Having regard to the provisions of Sections 13, 34 and 53 and 55 of the Excise Act, we must hold that if Commissioner, Collector, Police Officer or Excise Officcr "has reason to believe" that black jaggery (material) is likcly to be used for manufacture of ID liquor the same cal be seized and persons can be arrested and subject to facts and circumstances of each case including aly report o[ the chemical examiner a charge sheet can be hled under Section 34(e) of the Excise Act."

¶41

This Court while considering the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Deputg Commissioner oJ (Prohibition and, Excise) u. Shobalo,lz and the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka a. Krishno,n3 held as under:-

¶42

"61. We are bound by the apex ratio and are of considered opinion that in rnatters of excise offences, the

¶43

'z^{rsso 1r1ALT915(D.8.)} ' 2000 (7) scc 80

¶44

¶45

authorities and Courts should insist strict compliance with the provisions of the Excise Act.

¶46

Therefore, in these proceedings the^petitioners cannot be given any relief for release of either black^jaggeryor vehicles involved. It is open to them to approach criminal court for release of crime property and in such an event, without being influenced by any contra observations made herein above, any consideration shall be as^per law."

¶47

In the facts of the present case, though the^petitioner contends that subject goods under transport^were accompanied by valid documents of its^{purchaseand also} way bill, the same are not produced either before^the authority, which gave rise to the respondents authorities^to affect seizure of subject vehicle, or filed^{along with the writ} petition for consideration by this Court.

¶48

7 . Thus, in view of the settled legal position as^laid down by the FulI Bench of this Court in Ganesh^Traders case (1 Supra), this Court is of the^{view that the petitioner} should be directed to approach respondent^No.2-Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Nalgonda^{District by makingan} application under Section 46 of^{the Act, seeking release of} 130 bags of black^jaggery each^{bag containing5O kgs.}

¶49

¶50

ii I

¶51

seized in connection with Crime NO.10 of 2024. On such application being filed by the petitioner seeking release ol the seized goods, the said authority shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law, keeping in vieur the law laid down by the Hon,ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarata as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (O2) weeks from the date of receipt of the application.

¶52