Dev Kishan Ladda vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Dev Kishan Ladda, is accused no. 2 in FIR No. 7 of 2022, registered on January 6, 2022, by the SHO of Yellandu Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, for an offense under Section 34(e) of the Telangana State Excise Act, 1968. The FIR alleges that on January 6, 2022, excise officials apprehended a person (accused no. 1) with 200 kgs of jaggery and 50 kgs of alum, valued at Rs. 12,000. Accused no. 1 stated that he purchased these raw materials from the petitioner for manufacturing and selling illicit liquor. The petitioner, who operates M/s. Daduram Sathyam Trading Company and is GST registered, claims he was falsely implicated as his involvement is nil. He argues that selling jaggery and alum is not an offense. He had previously filed W.P. No. 23448 of 2020, and this court had directed police not to interfere with his business.

Held

The Court held that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, accused no. 2, amounts to an abuse of the process of law and is liable to be quashed. The Court analyzed Section 2(22A) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968, which defines 'material' to include molasses, wash, and other substances specified by the State Government. It referred to Memo No. 47802/Ex.I-I/2006-13 dated December 20, 2010, wherein the Government decided not to impose restrictions on jaggery, recognizing that its inclusion in the definition of 'material' could adversely affect genuine farmers and traders. The Court found that jaggery does not fall within the definition of 'material' under Section 2(22A) of the Act. Consequently, the petitioner, by selling jaggery, cannot be held to have committed an offense punishable under Section 34(e) of the Act, which penalizes the use, keeping in possession, or manufacturing of any 'material' for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicants. The Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, accused no. 2, for selling jaggery and alum, amounts to an abuse of the process of law, considering the definition of 'material' under Section 2(22A) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968, and the Government's policy decision as reflected in Memo No. 47802/Ex.I-I/2006-13 dated December 20, 2010? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that selling jaggery and alum is not an offense in itself. He relied on the Government of Andhra Pradesh Memo dated December 20, 2010, which indicated that jaggery was not to be included in the definition of 'material' for the purpose of the Excise Act, as doing so might adversely affect genuine farmers and traders. He argued that since jaggery is not 'material' under Section 2(22A) of the Act, possessing or selling it does not constitute an offense under Section 34(e). He also highlighted a previous court order directing authorities not to interfere with his business. Revenue's arguments: The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioner's involvement was found, and he was selling materials used in manufacturing illicit liquor despite being prohibited, making him liable for prosecution.