AP High Court quashes prohibition case against a 72-year-old jaggery merchant, following its earlier rulings on black jaggery

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Date of judgment: 21 September 2026
Case: CRLP/8291/2026
Parties: Reddy Pedda Ramana Goud Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Bench: MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
Outcome: Allowed

Summary

A 72-year-old jaggery merchant from Guntakal asked the High Court to quash a case against him under the A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and the Gur (Regulation of Use) Order, 1968. His counsel argued that he had no link to the allegations beyond a co-accused's confession, and the Assistant Public Prosecutor accepted that the issue was already settled by earlier High Court orders.

The question before the court

Can proceedings under the prohibition law be sustained over transport or trade in black jaggery?
Is the matter covered by the High Court's earlier quashing orders?

The court's decision

The High Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings pending against the petitioner (Accused 7) in C.C. No. 840 of 2025 before the Judicial Magistrate at Pathikonda, Kurnool district. It followed four earlier orders of the Court, including one noting that black jaggery is treated as an agricultural produce under G.O.Ms.No.149 (Excise-II) of 2017, so the penal provisions are not attracted.

Provisions referred to

Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020
Gur (Regulation of Use) Order, 1968

Read the full judgment (PDF) ↗

Official source: High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The PDF above is a copy from an open dataset of the court's public records.

This summary is prepared for general assistance only. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — rely on the full judgment.

Criminal Law Quashing Of Proceedings Prohibition Law Criminal Petition

Related judgments

AP High Court ·28 Sep 2026 ·Police Powers

AP High Court: Police cannot keep a 'suspect sheet' on a person facing a single case without showing habitual offending

The question: Can a suspect sheet be opened and continued against a person who faces only one criminal case?

A man who had been named in one criminal case asked the High Court to close a suspect sheet the Visakhapatnam police opened against him in 2019. The police said the sheet was meant to curb his alleged unlawful activity near the Steel Plant. The High Court held that this general claim was not enough, because nothing showed he fell within the categories in the Police Standing Orders or was a habitual offender.

Allowed WP/4108/2023

AP High Court ·25 Sep 2026 ·Writ Petition

AP High Court sets aside a preventive detention order because the detaining authority never considered the detenu's bail orders

The question: Must bail orders in the cases relied on be placed before the detaining authority?

The Collector of Sri Sathya Sai district detained a man under the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 (the 'Goondas Act') on the basis of nine criminal cases, and the State confirmed the order in May 2026. In a habeas corpus writ, a Division Bench of the High Court found that bail orders in two of those cases had not been placed before the detaining authority, and quashed the detention.

Allowed WP/13273/2026

Telangana High Court ·22 Sep 2026 ·Criminal Law

Telangana HC acquits man of murder: incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence, and statements of untested witnesses cannot prove 'last see

The question: Can statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC be treated as substantive evidence when the witnesses did not testify at trial?

A Division Bench of the Telangana High Court set aside a Jagtial sessions court's life sentence for murder and destruction of evidence. The prosecution had proved a homicidal death but not who caused it. Its key 'last seen together' link rested on statements of two witnesses recorded before a magistrate who were never examined at trial, and the recovery of a towel did not connect the accused to the death.

Allowed CRLA/683/2025