JUDGMENT Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") is filed seeking quash of charge sheet in C.C.No.166 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvuru. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. The petitioner is A-3 in C.C.No.166 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvuru. He has been facing prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, along with A-1 and A-2. The case of the prosecution is that A-1 and A-2 were found to be involved in manufacturing I.D. liquor and for the said purpose that they have purchased jaggery from the petitioner, who is A-3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a covered matter in view of the earlier order passed by this Court as per common order in Criminal Petition No.406 of 2021 and batch and contends that this Court held that mere selling of jaggery by a trader, who is doing business, is not an offence and he is not liable for prosecution under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. Therefore, he would submit the petitioner, who is similarly placed, is also entitled for quash of charge sheet filed against him. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also fairly concede that the petitioner is a trader and that the only allegation against him is that he is selling jaggery to A-1 and A-2, who are involved in manufacturing I.D. liquor. He would also concede that this is a covered matter in view of the aforesaid earlier orders of this Court and thereby prayed to pass appropriate orders accordingly in this Criminal Petition. 6. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner is a trader doing business. The allegation in the charge sheet also shows that jaggery was purchased from him by the other accused, who are involved in manufacturing I.D. liquor. Therefore, nothing can be attributed to the petitioner herein in manufacturing I.D. liquor to prosecute him for the aforesaid offences. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner is a trader doing business. The allegation in the charge sheet also shows that jaggery was purchased from him by the other accused, who are involved in manufacturing I.D. liquor. Therefore, nothing can be attributed to the petitioner herein in manufacturing I.D. liquor to prosecute him for the aforesaid offences. This Court, as per the common order passed in Criminal Petition No.406 of 2021 and batch, held that mere sale of jaggery by a trader doing business in it, to the other person, who is involved in manufacturing I.D. liquor, is not an offence under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and also held that launching of criminal prosecution against the petitioner therein amounts to abuse of process of law and thereby quashed the F.I.R registered against him. 7. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid earlier orders of this Court and for the reasons stated therein, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the charge sheet registered against the petitioner, who is A-3, in C.C.No.166 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvuru, is hereby quashed. However, trial against A-1 and A-2 shall go on. 8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.