Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

Mere Possession or Transportation of Black Jaggery Not an Offense Under Excise Act: Telangana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Telangana High Court, under Justice C. V. Bhaskar Reddy, has ruled on a writ petition filed by New Lucky Kirana and General Store, challenging the confiscation order issued by the Prohibition and Excise Department. The case centers around the seizure of 4998 kgs of black jaggery and 3600 kgs of alum from the petitioner’s shop.

New Lucky Kirana and General Store, a proprietary business, had its premises raided on March 5, 2024, by the Excise authorities, resulting in the seizure of substantial quantities of black jaggery and alum. The store, operating with valid trade and tax licenses, including registration under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, contested the seizure as arbitrary and not in accordance with the due process of law.

Lack of Evidence for Illicit Intent: The court emphasized that mere possession or transportation of black jaggery does not constitute an offense under the Telangana Excise Act, 1968, unless it is proven to be intended for the manufacture of illicit liquor.

Reference to Precedents: The judgment referenced the Full Bench decision in Ganesh Traders and other significant cases such as Athukuri Subba Rao vs. The State of Telangana. The court reiterated the necessity of a "reason to believe" that the seized materials were meant for illicit liquor production before any confiscation could be justified.

Directions for Appeal and Release: The court directed the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 46C of the Telangana Excise Act. Additionally, it ordered the provisional release of the seized goods upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee equivalent to the value of the goods.

Justice Reddy’s observations underscored the importance of strict compliance with legal provisions in excise-related offenses. The court found that the authorities had not adequately demonstrated a reasonable belief that the black jaggery was intended for illicit purposes. This lack of evidence rendered the confiscation arbitrary.

The judgment highlighted the principles laid down in earlier cases, notably the need for concrete evidence to support the seizure of goods suspected to be used in illegal activities. The court’s insistence on due process and legal compliance serves as a critical reminder of the limits of excise authority powers.

Conclusion The Telangana High Court’s decision in this case reaffirms the protection of lawful trade practices against arbitrary governmental actions. By directing the release of the seized goods and allowing the petitioner to challenge the confiscation through proper legal channels, the court has reinforced the importance of due process.

Date of Decision: May 16, 2024

New Lucky Kirana and General Store vs. State of Telangana

 

Latest Legal News