MD. AKBAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Factual matrix of the following cases is thus:

(2.) Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in all the above cases argued that possession, collection, importing, exporting and transporting of Black Jaggery, Navasaram and Alum cannot be said to be an offence under Section 34 of Excise Act since none of the aforesaid material is an intoxicant within the meaning of Section 2(19) of Excise Act and therefore registration of above crimes by the concerned police is nothing but abuse of process of law. In that context of the matter, the petitioners in the above cases are having good ground to succeed and therefore, pending the cases they are entitled to release of subject property. But in Crl.M.P.Nos.3357, 48 and 2267 of 2014 (in Crl.P.Nos.86, 89 and 97 of 2015 respectively) learned Magistrates have dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioners under Section 457 Cr.P.C. on an erroneous view that they had no jurisdiction. His submission is that when the materials involved in each case do not satisfy the definition intoxicant, no offence is made out and thereby their seizure amounts to illegal and hence the petitioners in those cases need not approach Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise seeking release of the materials and instead the learned Magistrate can order interim custody. On this aspect he relied upon the following decisions:

(3.) a) Per contra, vehemently opposing the petitions, learned Public prosecutor argued that though Black Jaggery, Navasaram and Alum are not specifically mentioned as intoxicants under Section 2(19) of Excise Act, still it is an admitted fact that they are used for manufacture of I.D. Liquor and therefore, the Excise Police on bona fide suspicion seized those materials and it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners/accused.