Ghanshyam Das Karwa Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ghanshyam Das Karwa Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashment of the proceedings against petitioners/Accused Nos.7 and 8 in COR No.59 of 2022 on the file of the Prohibition and Excise, Kachiguda Excise Station, for offences under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 and Section 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC by petitioners/Accused Nos.7 and 8 seeking quashment of the proceedings in COR No.59 of 2022 (Kachiguda Excise Station) for offences under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 and Section 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 should be allowed.

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and also the orders dated 07.03.2025 in Criminal Petition No.3315 of 2025 and dated 18.06.2025 in Criminal Petition No.4022 of 2025, this Court was of the considered view that the proceedings against the petitioners in COR No.59 of 2022 on the file of the Prohibition and Excise, Kachiguda Excise Station, are liable to be quashed.

Ratio / Principle

Accordingly, the criminal petition was allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.7 and 8 in COR No.59 of 2022 on the file of the Prohibition and Excise, Kachiguda Excise Station, for the offences punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 and Section 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968, were quashed; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

TELANGANA HIGH COURT (J. Sreenivas Rao, J.), 02.09.2025 — Crl.P. No.7483 of 2022: Criminal petition under S.482 CrPC by Accused Nos.7 and 8 (Ghanshyam Das Karwa and Abhisek Kanva, businessmen of Begum Bazaar, Hyderabad) seeking quashment of COR No.59 of 2022 dt.19.08.2022 of Prohibition & Excise, Kachiguda Excise Station, for offences under S.7(A) r/w 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 and S.34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968. Learned counsel pleaded that the issue was squarely covered by this Court's orders dt.07.03.2025 in Crl.P. No.3315 of 2025 and dt.18.06.2025 in Crl.P. No.4022 of 2025, copies of which were served on the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, who did not dispute the contention. Holding the proceedings liable to be quashed on that footing, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against Accused Nos.7 and 8; pending miscellaneous applications were closed. (The file encloses a true copy of the relied-upon order dt.18.06.2025 in Crl.P. No.4022 of 2025 — N. Tukaramji, J. — whereby proceedings against an accused trading in black jaggery powder and alum, booked under Ss.34(1)(ii)/34(2), T.S. Excise Act, 1968, were quashed following Crl.P. No.1664 of 2025, on the ground that mere dealing in jaggery, absent processing towards manufacture of an intoxicant, is no offence and continuation amounts to abuse of process.)

\

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

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY^{OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIGE^{J SREENIVASRAO}

CRIMINAL PETIT ION NO:^{7483 OF 2022}

Between:

Ghanshyam Das Karwa, S/o.^{LateHarikishanKarwa, Aged 52years, Occ'} Busines-s, Rlo. 14-7-392, Begum^{Bazaar, Hyderabad.}

Abhisek Kanva, S/o Ghanshyam^{Das KanaraAge 30 Years Occ.Business R/o'} 1 4-7 -392, Begum Bazaar, HYderabad.

.Petitioners/Accused^No.7,8

AND

The State of Telangana, Rep.^{by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of} Judicature at HYderabad

The Prohibition and Excise^{Sub-lnspector, Kachtguda Police Station,} Hyderabad.

...RespondenUDefacto-Com^plainants

Petition under Section 482^{of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminalPetition,the Highcourtmay} be^pleased to^quash COR^{No.59l2022dated.19/08/22filed against the} petitioners/Accused No.7 and 8 before Prohibition^{and Excise Kachiguda Police} Station, Hyderabad.

l.A. NO: 2OF 2022

Petition under section^{482 of cr.P .c praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminalPetition,the Highcourtmay} be pleased to stay all further^{proceedings including investigationand arrest of} the^petitioners in coR.No.S9^{t2022 beforeProhibitionand Excise Kachiguda} Police Station.

This Petition coming on^{for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandumof} Grounds of criminal Petition^{and upon hearingthe argumentsof sri Damodar} Mundra, Advocate for the^{Petitioner and the sri M.vivekananda Reddy, Assistant} Public Prosecutor on behalf^{of the Respondent Nos-1 and 2.}

The Court made the following: ORDER

-7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAI, PETI TION No.7483 of 2022

ORDER:

This Criminal petition has been frled under.Section 4g2 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (for short, .Cr.p.C.) by the petitioners/accused Nos.7 and g, seeking to quash the proceedings in COR No.59 of 2022 on the frle of the Prohibition and Excise, Kachiguda Excise Station, for the offences punishable under Section 7(A) r/w g(e) of the Andhra Pradesh prohibition Act, 1995 and Section 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act. 196g.

Heard Mr. Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for the petltroners and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent Nos.l and 2.

Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue raised in this criminal petition is squarely covered by the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.3315 of 2025 and order dated 1g.06.2025 n

2

Criminal petition No.4022^{of 2025. Learned counsel placed} the copy of the above said orders by duly^{serving uponthe} leamed Assistant Public^Prosecutor.

Learned Assistant Public^{Prosecutorhas not disputed} the same.

Taking into consideration^{the submissions made by the} learned counsel for the^{petitioners and also the orderdated} 07.03.2025 passed by this^{Court inCrirninal Petition} No.3315 of 2025 and order^{dated 18-06-2025in Crirninal} petition No.4022 of 2025, this Court^{is of the considered} view that the proceedings against^{the petitioners in COR} No.59 of 2022 on the^{frle of the Prohibitionand Excise,} I(achiguda Excise Station,^{are liable to be quashed-}

Accordingly, the criminal^{petition is allowed and the} proceedings against the^{petitioners/accusedNos-7 and 8 in} COR No.59 of^{2022 on the file of the Prohibition and Excise,} I(achiguda Excise^{Station,for tl e offences punishableunder} Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of^{the Andhra PradeshProhibition Act,}

3

1995 and Section 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968,

are hereby quashed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY// t- OFFICER

To,

The lV Additional^{Chief Metropolitan Magisqate,Nampally-' Hyderg.bad} i. iii" Siiti".^{House Officer.prbntOition aid Excise Police Station, Kachiguda,} Hvderabad.

e. t'ir:,"ct i; the^{pubtic prosecutor, High courtfor the state of Tetanganaat} Hyderabad [OUTI

+. ohJCC to Sri^{Da'modar Mundra, AdvocateIOPUC]}

Two CD CoPies

Yt-

NVB/PSL

:
,*,

l i I I I I I I I

L,
',

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210912025

ORDER

CRLP.No.7483 of 2022

rA;)'Xr
'(' 1,t
=)
a-) -_ i:
i t-> t n !i'i? ?s6
,,. g.
\1i l.r.- ----
--'.: '' l-i.. ,

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

s ,dd
YKy'

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4022 OF 202s

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (tor short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.45 of 2024, on the file of the learned XVll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cyberabad at Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District.

The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4 in the Calendar Case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 34(1)(ii) and 34(2) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968.

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

The allegation against the petitioner is that he is engaged in the business of selling black jaggery powder and alum, as well as related materials, which are allegedly used in the manufacture of illicitly distilled liquor. lt is further alleged that he supplies these materials to customers upon receiving orders.

2

C11.P.No.4022_2025

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that none of the prosecution's evidence demonstrates the petitioner's involvement in the actual distillation of illicit liquor. He argues that merely conducting business in black jaggery powder and alum does not, in itself, warrant prosecution. Furthermore, he submits that this Court, by order dated 06.02.2025 in Criminat Petition No. 1664 of 2025, considered a similar issue and concluded that, in the absence of any evidence showing that the petitioners processed intoxicating substances, they cannot be held liable for any offence under the Excise Act. Consequenfly, the proceedings were quashed. As the issue contested in the present petition is directly covered by the earlier judgment, learned counsel prays for the same relief and requests that the current proceedings be quashed.

The learned Additionar Pubric prosecutor fairry concedes that this aspect has already been considered and decided by this Court in the aforementioned criminal petition, and that the legal proposition established therein is directly applicable to the present case.

I have reviewed the materials on record and carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both parties.

NTR.J C.LP .No.4O22²⁰²³

3

A coordinate bench of this Court, in Criminal^{Petition No. 1664 of} 2025, examined the Memo issued by the Government of^Andhra Pradesh (No. 47802/Ex.lll.1/2006-1 3, dated 20.12.2010), wherein the request to impose a ban or restriction on the^possession or sale^of black^jaggery or^jaggery under Section 2 of the ielangana Excise^Act was declined. After considering the^purport of Section^{2(22A), Sections} 34, 13(1X0, and 42(c) of the Telangana Excise Act, the Court^{held that} engaging in the business of^purchasing or selling^{jaggerydoes not} constitute an offence. The relevant^portion is extracted^hereunder:

"sections 34 and 13(1)(f) of the Telangana Excise Act, lays down^penalty for illegal import, export etc., and for manufacture of the^{prohibitedmaterial} mentioned therein without any license or^permit. Section 34€^{penalizes the} use, keeping in possession any material, stills, utensils, implements^or apparatus whatsoever for the^purpose of^{manufacturing} any^{intoxicantother} than toddy. The^{presumption given} under^Section42( c )of^{the Excise Act is} that any materials which have undergone any^{process towardsthe} manufacture of any intoxicant or from which an^{intoxicanthas been} manufactured; for the^possession of which he is unable to^account satisfactorily. There is no material to show that the^{petitionershave} processed the said black jaggery for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant substance. As earlier discussed,^jaggery does not^{fall withinthe} 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^purchase and sale of^jaggery, have not^{committedthe offences} alleged against them.

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

/

NTR=I Crl.P.No.4022_2025

4

In light of the settled legal position discussed above, and given that the sole allegation against the petitioner is his involvement in the business of black^jaggery powder, it is clear that allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the judicial process. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioner (Accused No. 4) in C.C. No. 45 of 2024, pending before the XVII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cyberabad at Maheshwaram, R.R. District, are liable to be quashed. Ordered accordingly.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4 in C.C.No.45 of 2024 on the file of the XVll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cyberabad at Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed

N.TUKARAMJI, J

Date:18.06.2025

Ccm/svl