Allowed¶46

Santosh Singh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Jun 2025CRLP/4100/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashment — black jaggery powder — alum — illicit distilled liquor — T.S. Excise Act, 1968, Ss.34(1)(xii), 34(2) — S.2(22A) 'material' — S.42(c) presumption — abuse of legal process — S.528 BNSS — Crl.P.No.4100 of 2025 — followed Crl.P.No.1664 of 2025 (order dated 06.02.2025) — C.C.No.5812 of 2023, lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally — Prohibition & Excise Police Station, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 in C.C.No.5812 of 2023 pending before the lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed. ¶46

Santosh Singh Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners (Accused Nos.3, 4 and 6) in C.C.No.5812 of 2023, founded solely on their business in black jaggery powder and alum allegedly used for manufacturing illicit distilled liquor, ought to be quashed as an abuse of the legal process.

¶28

Court's answer

In light of the settled legal position laid down by a Coordinate Bench in Criminal Petition No.1664 of 2025, where the sole allegation against the petitioners is that they are engaged in the business of black jaggery powder, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the legal process.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

The criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 in C.C.No.5812 of 2023 pending before the lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are quashed.

¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.528 BNSS allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.5812 of 2023 (lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally) against Accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 — alleged to run a business in black jaggery powder and alum used for manufacturing illicit distilled liquor, punishable under Ss.34(1)(xii) & 34(2), T.S. Excise Act, 1968 — quashed. Following a Coordinate Bench ruling in Criminal Petition No.1664 of 2025 (order dated 06.02.2025), which noted the Government's refusal (Memo No.47802/Ex.III.1/2006-13, dated 20.12.2010) to ban black jaggery and held that jaggery is not 'material' under S.2(22A) of the Telangana Excise Act and that its purchase/sale constitutes no offence, the Court held that continuation of prosecution based solely on such trade would be an abuse of the legal process.

¶1

132',t7 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH^{DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

CRIMINAL PET^{ITION NO: 4100OF 2025}

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Santosh Singh, S/o. Shanker^{Singh, Aged.32 years, Occ. Business,R/o 13-} 1-925, BadaBangla, Dhootpet,^Hyderabad

¶9

2 Shiv Kumar, S/o. Karabasavappa,^{Aged. 61 years, Occ. Business'R/o'} H No.55, Kunta Sirasi, Bhalki,^{Kurubkhelagi, Bidar, Karnataka.}

¶10

Krishna Bung,, S/o.^{Suresh Bung,Aged 52 years,Occ.Business,R/o 15-7-} 239' Begum Bazar' Hyderabad

¶11

...petitioner/Accused^{No.A3, A4 & A6.}

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana,^{Rep.by its PublicProsecutor,HighCourt of} Judicature at Hyderabad.

¶14

...Respondent

¶15

The Prohibition and^{Excise StationHouseOfficer, Kachiguda, Hyderabad'}

¶16

...RespondenU Defacto-complainant

¶17

Petition under section 528 of^{BNSS prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminalPetition,the Highcourt may} be pleased to^quash c.c.No.^{5812 of 2023 on the file lV Additional chief} Metiopolitan Magistrate^{at Nampally, Hyderabad in the interestof justice'}

¶18

l.A. NO: 1OF 2025

¶19

Petition under section 528 of^{BNSS prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminalPetition,the Highcourt may} be pleased to stay all^{further proceedings including personal attendanceof the} petitioner in c.c.No. 5812 of 2023^{on the file lV Additionalchief Metropolitan} 'lr/agistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad pending disposal of the present Criminal Petition.

¶20

This Petition coming on^{for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of} Grounds of criminal^{Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Damodar} Mundra, Advocate for the^{Petitionersand the sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla,} Additional Public Prosecutor^{on behalfof the Respondent'}

¶21

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4100 OF 2025

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.5812 of 2023, on the file of the learned lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶26

The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 in the Calendar Case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 34(l Xll) and 34(2) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968

¶27

Heard Mr. Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

¶28

The accusation against the petitioners is that petitioner No.3/accused No.6 along with others running business of black jaggery powder and alum allied material which are used for manufacturing illicit distilled liquor and supply these materials on orders from the customers.

¶29

¶30

Cd.I No.4

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that hone of the prosecution proceedings are demonstrating that the petitioners are involved in distilling illicit liquor and the accusation of conducting business in black jaggery powder and Alum would not call for prosecution. He further submits that this Court vide order dated 06.02.2025 in Criminal Petition No.1664 of 2025 had considered similar aspect and concluded that in absence of any materials that the petitioners processed intoxicant substance, cannot be held liable for any offence under Excise Act and quashed the proceedings. Thus as the contested aspect in the present criminal petition is squarely covered in the earlier^judgments prayed for putting into effect and to quash the proceedings.

¶32

¶33

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would fairly submit that the aspect has been considered and determined by this Court in the above referred criminal petition and that proposition is squarely applicable to the present case.

¶34

7 . I have perused the materials on record and carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel.

¶35

B. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Criminal Petition No. 1664 of 2025, atler considering the Memo issued by the Government of Andhra

¶36

\ fR.I Cd P \o.ll00 2t)li

¶37

¶38

.t-

¶39

Pradesh (tt/lemo No. 47802lEx.lll.1/2006-13, daled 20.12.2010), noted that the Government had declined the request to impose a ban^or restriction on the possession or sale of black^jaggery or^jaggery under Section 2 of the Telangana Excise Act. Upon examining the scope and intent of Section 2(22A), as well as Sections 13(1Xf), 34, and 42(c) of the Telangana Excise Act, the Court held that engaging in the business of purchasing or selling jaggery does not constitute an offence. The relevant portion is reproduced below

¶40

"Sections; 34 and 13(1X0 of the Telangana Excise Act, lays down penalty for illegal inlport, export etc., and for manufacture of the^prohibited material mentioned therein without any license or permrt. Section 34€ penalizes the use, keeping in possession any material, stills, utensils, implements or apparatus whatsoever for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy. The presumption given under Section 42( c ) of the Excise Act is that any materials which have undergone any process towards the manufacture of any intoxicant or from which an intoxicant has been manufactured; for the possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily. There is no material to show that the petitioners have processed the said black^jaggery for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant substance. As earlier discussed,^jaggery does not fall within the term 'material', as enumerated under Section 2 (22A) of the Telangana Excise Act. Thus, it is clears that the petitioners, who are engaged in the business of purchaser and sale of jaggery, have not committed the offences alleged against them.

¶41

ln view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 5 amounts to abuse of^process of law."

(;.l.P
^\o.41

9' ln light of the setfled legar position ouflined above, and considering that the sole allegation against the petitioners is that they are engaged in the business of black jaggery powder, the continuation of criminal proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the legal process- Accordingry, the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 3, 4 and 6 in C.C. No. SB12 of 2023, pending before the learned lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are liable to be quashed. Ordered accordingly.

¶46

For the reasons stated above, the criminar petition is ailowed. consequently, the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 3, 4 and 6 in C.C. No. 5812 of 2023, pending before the learned lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

¶47

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed

¶48

To,

¶49

//TRUE COPY//

¶50

SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL
D PUTY REGISTRAR
S CTION OFFICER

¶51

'1 . The lV Additional chief Metroporitan magistrate at Nampailv. Hvderabad 2. The Station House officer, prbhibition aid Excise potice St'itioiliJ"n]dro", Hyderabad.

¶52