Telangana High Court
Rafeeq Khan Abdul Rafay Khan,A3 vs The State Of Telangana. on 13 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.14801 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner-accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.154 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Khanapur, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 7(A) read with Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act') and 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 (for short 'the Excise Act').
2. Heard Mr. C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the order dated 04.03.2022 in Crl.P.No.15636 of 2013.
2
ETD, J crlp_14801_2025
4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also submitted that the issue in the present criminal petition is squarely covered by the earlier order in the above criminal petition.
5. Perused the record. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has sold black jaggery and alum to accused No.2, who in turn sold the same to accused No.1, who has indulged in preparation of I.D. liquor. An FIR has been registered under Sections 7(A) read with Section 8(e) of the Act and 34(e) of the Excise Act. Section 7(A) of the Act prohibits production, manufacture, storage, possession, collection, purchase, sale and transportation of arrack. Section 8(e) of the Act envisages that the person who contravenes the provision of Section 7-A of the Act be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend up to eight years and with fine, which shall not be less than rupees two lakhs. Section 34 (e) of the Excise Act, prescribes penalties for the illegal import, export, etc., of prohibited materials mentioned therein, without any license or permit. Specifically, the said Section penalizes the use and possession of any materials, stills, utensils, implements, 3 ETD, J crlp_14801_2025 or apparatus whatsoever for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy.
6. The material alleged to have been seized herein is black jaggery. It is pertinent to refer to Section 2 (22A) of the Act reads as under:
"material' includes molasses, wash and such other substances as the State Government may, by notification, specify";
7. Further, proceedings were issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in Memo No.47802/Ex.III.1/2006-13, dated 20.12.2010, and the contents of the said memo are extracted below:
"The attention of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A.P., Hyderabad is invited to the reference 1st cited, wherein he has sent proposal for inclusion of Rotten Jaggery under definition of material in A.P. Excise Act, 1968 so as to ensure effective control of ID arrack crime and to improve Government Revenue.
2. Government after careful examination of the matter, hereby decided that Black Jaggery or Rotten Jaggery or any other form of Jaggery are viewed as agriculture produce or its bi-products and inclusion of the same in the list of the 'materials' used in the manufacture of ID liquor may adversely affect the interest of genuine ryots and the traders. Hence, it was 4 ETD, J crlp_14801_2025 decided not to impose restriction on any agriculture produce, particularly on Jaggery.
3. Hence, the proposal to include rotten jaggery under definition of 'material' u/s. 2 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 has not been accepted by the Government."
8. Thus, a conjoint reading of Section 34(e) of the Excise Act, the definition of "material" under Section 2(22A) of the Act, and the recitals of the Government Memo dated 20.12.2010, would lead to the conclusion that black jaggery is not a material as enumerated under Section 2(22A) of the Act. Hence, it cannot be held that the petitioner has committed an offence as laid down under Section 34(e) of the Excise Act. As per the charge sheet, it is not the version of the Excise Officials that the petitioner was found in the process of producing, manufacturing, storing, possessing, collecting, selling or transporting arrack. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioner has committed offences as laid down under Sections 7-A of the Act, for which punishment is prescribed under Section 8(e) of the Act.
9. Similar matters have been disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.15636 of 2013, wherein the 5 ETD, J crlp_14801_2025 proceedings against the petitioner therein were quashed, holding that taking cognizance for possession of black jaggery and alum 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 petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.3 in C.C.No.154 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Khanapur, are hereby quashed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA 13.11.2025 rev