Allowed¶48

Ananthagiri Sudhakar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Nov 2025CRLP/14170/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court allows quashing petition under Section 528 BNSS; FIR No.297 of 2024, Maripeda Police Station, Mahabubabad District; Section 34(e) Telangana Excise Act 1968; possession of black jaggery; ID liquor manufacture; Section 2(22A) definition of 'material'; Government memo dated 20.12.2010 treating black/rotten jaggery as agricultural produce; follows co-ordinate Bench order dated 04.03.2022 in Crl.P.No.15636 of 2013; abuse of process of law; Justice Tirumala Devi Eada; Criminal Petition No.14170 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 in FIR No.297 of 2024 on the file of Maripeda Police Station, Mahabubabad District; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. ¶48

Ananthagiri Sudhakar Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 in FIR No.297 of 2024 on the file of Maripeda Police Station, Mahabubabad District; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 in FIR No.297 of 2024 on the file of Maripeda Police Station, registered under S.34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968, should be quashed. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

Applying the analogy of the co-ordinate Bench order in Crl.P.No.15636 of 2013, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

On a conjoint reading of S.34(e) of the Act, the definition of 'material' under S.2(22A), and the recitals of the Government memo dated 20.12.2010, black jaggery is not a 'material' enumerated under S.2(22A) of the Act.

¶43

Key takeaways

Accordingly, the petitioners cannot be held to have committed an offence as laid down under S.34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.528 BNSS by seven accused seeking quash of FIR No.297 of 2024 (Maripeda Police Station, Mahabubabad District), registered under S.34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 over alleged possession of black jaggery said to be used in the manufacture of ID liquor. Held, on a conjoint reading of S.34(e), the definition of 'material' in S.2(22A) and a Government memo dated 20.12.2010 (which declined to treat rotten/black jaggery as 'material', viewing it as agricultural produce), black jaggery is not a 'material' enumerated under S.2(22A); the petitioners therefore cannot be held to have committed an offence under S.34(e). Applying a co-ordinate Bench order in Crl.P.No.15636 of 2013 (order dated 04.03.2022) which had quashed similar proceedings, the court held continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Petition allowed; proceedings in FIR No.297 of 2024 quashed; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT IUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶6

Criminal Petition No.14170 of 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

L. Ananthagiri Sudhakar, sf o Biksham, aged About 46 years, occ- Driver, r/o 54-67. seetharampuram, Maripeda village and Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

¶9

UlIi Ramesh, sf o Suraiah, aged about 56 years Occ- Kirana Shop, r/o H.No. 5-9-84/7 Opp/. SBI Bank, Maripeda village and Mandal Mahabubabad District.

¶10

Daram Devendar, s/o Ramaiah, aged about 48 years, occ- Kirana shop, r/o 5-9-80, Main Road, Maripeda Bunglow, Maripeda Mahabubabad District.

¶11

Soma Srinivas, s/o Venkanna, aged 48 years Occ- Kirana shop, r/o Ramvilas Street, Maripeda Bunglow, Maripeda, Mahabubabad District.

¶12

Ypputu.Ramesh, y'o_Jagannadham, aged 43 years, occ- Kirana shop, rf o occ- Kirana - -S_hoP,^{r/o Maripeda Bunglow,Maripedavillage And Mandal, MahabubabadDistrict.}

¶13

6- Kodumuri Mallikarjutta Rao, s/o Vishwanadham Aged 66 years, occ- Business, r/o H. No. 9-77-59 / 1 Kaman Bazar, Khammam Urbaru Khimmarn- District.

¶14

Y_utdStupu Harikrish!1, t/ o Satyanarayana,,aged 46 years, occ- Kirnaa shop, r/ o l-874, Jrblleepura, Near sairam theatre, caharrictrowk, Khammam District.

¶15

...petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 7.

¶16

AND

¶17

The State o_f Telangana, through S.H.O., Maripeda Police Station, Mahabubabad District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hvderabad.

¶18

... Respondent/ Complainant.

¶19

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the F.I.R.No. 297 of 2024 on the file of the Maripeda Police Station, Mahabubabad District, and quash the same thereon, and to grant iuch other relief or reliefs as this Honbte Court deems fit and proper if, the circumstances of the case.

¶20

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2025

¶21

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in F.I.R.No.297 of 2024 on the file of the Maripeda Police Station, Mahabubabad District, pending disposal of thgCriminal petition.

¶22

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Arvapalli Shiva Sai Nath, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behatf of the Respondent.

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI^EADA CRIM!NAL PETITION No.1417^O ot^2O25

¶25

¶26

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section^{528 Bharatiya} Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023^(for short^{'BNSS') by the} petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 seeking to^quash the^proceedings against them in FIR No.297 of^{2024 on the file of Maripeda Police} Station, Mahabubabad District,^{registered for the allegedoffence} punishable under Section 34 (e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 (for short^'the Act').

¶27

Heard Mr.A.Shiva Sainath, learned counsel for^the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the^respondent.

¶28

¶29

Learned counsel for the^{petitionerssubmitted that the} matter is squarely^{covered by the order dated 04-O3.2022 in} Crl.P.No. 1 5636 of 201 3.

¶30

Learned Additional Public^{Prosecutoralso submitted that} the issue in the^present criminal^{petition is squarelycovered by} the earlier order in the above^{criminal petition.}

¶31

¶32

ETD, J Crl.P_l4l7o]025

¶33

Perused the record. The allegation against the petitioners is that they were found in possession of brack jaggery. lt is alleged that the said black jaggery is used as a material in the preparation of lD liquor, and that the petitioners have been selling it to earn good returns, as it is used in the manufacture of such liquor- An FIR has been registered under section 34 (e) of the Act, which prescribes penarties for the iilegar import, export, etc., of prohibited materiars mentioned therein, without any license or permit' specificatty, section 34(e) of the Act penalizes the use and possession of any materiars, stiils, utensirs, imprements, or apparatus whatsoever for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy.

¶34

6' The materiar areged to have been seized nerdin is brack jaggery. lt is pertinent to r_,br to Section 2 (22A) of the Act reads as under:

¶35

.r ',material,includes ffiolassoo ti,^_L ;:l;i:m::;:#3erzffi?t,;:iiH:,:,i?

¶36

7' Furfier, proceedings were issued by the Government of nn\rra pradesh in Memo No-47802te).tu.1- t2oo6-13, dated

¶37

¶38

ETD, J Crl.P l4l'10 2O25

¶39

20.12.2010, and the contents of the^{said memo are extracted}

¶40

below:

¶41

"The attention of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A.P.,^Hyderabadis invited to the reference^{1st cited,whereinhe} has senf^{proposalfor inclusion of Rotten} J;;g;i -iic"iie'^{under definitionof mateiat in A'P'} nct, 1968^{so as to ensure effective} Iii,t.t^{of 'lD anack crime and to improve} Govemment^Revenue'

¶42

Govern^{mentafter careful examination of} the^{matter'herebYdecided thatgack Jaggery} or any^{other formof} orJaggery Roften^{are Jaggeryviewedas agiculture Produce or} and inclusion^{of the same in the} itslisf of^{the 'mateials'used inthe manufacture} the^interestof of lD^{liquor maY adve rselY affect} Hence,^{it was} genutne ryots^{and the taders.} n on^any decided not b imPose rficutatlY^{reslnctioon Jaggery'} agicultu^{re Produce'Pa}

¶43

to^include rotten 3. Hence,^{the ProPosal} 'matei^{al' u/s.2of} ja not^beenaccePted A :,;"*;::';l:!{,:: by the Government' 8. Thus'^{a coniointreadingof Section 34(e) of the Act' the} definition^{of "mate rial" under Section 2(22)ofthe Act' and the} recitals^{of the Government Memo dated 2Oj22O10, would} lead^{to the conctusion that black iaggery is not amaterialas} it cannot enumerated^{under Section ZQ}A) of the Act' Hence'}

¶44

¶45

ETD, J Crl.P l4l,7o 2025

¶46

be held that the petitioners have committed an offence as laid down under Section 34(e) of the said Act.

¶47

similar matters have been disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this court in crl.P.No.1s636 of 2013, wherein the proceedings against the petitioner therein were quashed, holding that taking cognizance for possession of brack jaggery would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Applying the same analogy, this court is also of the opinion that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶48

ln view of the foregoing discussion, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 in FIR No.297 of 2024 on the fire of Maripeda police

¶49

Station, Mahabubabad District, are hereby quashed.^$

¶50

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

¶51

shall stand closed.

¶52

SD/. K.BHAVAN! SWAMY
ASSTSTANT REGISTRAR
a
6
/ /TRUECOPY / /

¶53

SECTION OFFICER

¶54

To, 1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Thorrur