The High Court · 2025

2. Sri Katam Chandra Raieshwar Rao, S/o Not known to the Petitioners, Aged - iuo|.it gS years, Occ. deputy Tahasildar,-Rl/o.O/o Dist,Civil Supplies Office, Coitectordte, Kimareddy town and dist (Old Nrzamabad District) ...2.., RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to call for the records in connection with c c.N0.'173 OF 2020 on the file of court of Judicial Magistrate of First class (PDM) Kamareddy and quash the C.C.N0.173 OF 2O2O against the petitioners/Accused No.'l and 3 herein' l.A. NO: 1OF 2022 Petition under section 482 of cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in c.c.No.173 OF 2O2O on the file of court of Judicial Magistrate of First class (PDM) at KamareddY. '&::- If.Nl -i .P{'}Yt*rL . . r!:r: rl: A, NO: 'l OF 2025 t. PetitionUndersection52SofBNSSprayingthatirltheCircumstances Stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, th: High Court may be pleased to take up the Crl.P.No.87 of 2022 under the cirption "FOR BEING MENTIONED" to correct the 2nd petitioner as Accused No.2 in the place of AccusedNo'3inCrl.P'No.STof2022andalsointhel.A,Petition/Staypetition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing he Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Somavarapu satyanarayana, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mrs. S.Madl'ravi, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 and None app'lared for respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER i t I I I I I I I I i t I I I i w THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIM| NAL PETITION No.87 of 2022 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.173 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial tvlagistrate of First Class (PDM) at Kamareddy, pertaining to Crime No.69 of 2019 of P.S. Bhiknoor, registered for the offences under Section 420 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act').

2. Heard [\Ir. Somavarapu Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on receipt of credible information, lhe de facto complainant, who is the Deputy Tahsildar and civil supply task force team conducted vehicle check of a lorry bearing No.RJ 11 cB 3173 at Jangampally RTO Check Post and found the accused in the crime transporting 235 quintals of PDS rice from Mahaboobnagar District to Maharashtra, without any proper documents to gain illegal profits. The said rice was seized under the cover of 2 .{, panchanama Thereafter, the de facto complainant registered a case as per clause 6-4 of the Terangana state pubric Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (for sho(,'Control Order, 20.l€;').

4. Learned counser appearing for the petitione:rs submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are the Drive:r and owner of the lorry and the lorry was taken on hire basis. The seized rice which was being transported by the petrtioners herein is suppcrted by way bill, but the de facto complainant alleging the said rice as t)DS rice has seized the same. Mere transportation of rice is not a contravention of any of the control order. He further submits that the petitioners herein have not purchased the PDS rice from any fair shop dealers or card holders. To prove the same, neither any fair shop dealers cr card holders are examined nor any material was produced by the pros-.cution.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the rice is schedule commodity, but not an essential commcdity. As per Clause 3 of the Control Order, 2016, dated 29.09.2016, any dealer may freely buy, stock, sell, transport, distribute, dispose, acquile, use or consume any quantity of rice and that no permit or license is required, as the rice and paddy are not essential commodities. when the seized rice is 3 schedule commodity, the de facto complainant, who is the Deputy Tahsildar as well as the Civil Supplies Department has no power to seize, search and conduct panchanama of Schedule Commodities under the Act and the Collector has no power to issue notice under Section 6-A of the Act. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have involved in illegal transpo(ation of PDS rice. lt is further contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition

7. Admittedly, the rice is a schedule commodity, but not an essential commodity. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are the Driver and Owner of the lorry. On a perusal of the record, it is apparent that the rice which was being transported is supported by a waybill, which reflects that accused No.3 in the crime has sold the seized rice to another rice miller The lorry of petitioner-accused No.2, being driven by petitioner-accused No.1 was taken on hire basis to transport the seized rice. Merely 4 providing a lorry on hired basis cannot make the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2liable for prosecution. No material is produced by the pi'osecution to show that the accused No 3 in the .rime has purchased the PDS rice from any fair shop dealers or card holcrers. None of the fair shop dealers or card holders were examined. Evr:n if accused No.3_ owner of rice mill had purchased PDS rice from the (lonsumers, it cannot be an offence as he will be purchasing the same cy paying rnoney to them and as he is not interrr-rpting the process of distr.ibution of rice to the card holders. Tlrere is no prohibition with regard trl purchase, sale or storage anC transportation of rice and paddy, exce pt the rice which is nteant for public distribution. There is no material to show that there is nexus between the o'..nrner of the mill-accused No.3 and petitioners- accused Nos.1 and 2 ie., owner and driver of the lorry. ln the absence of any rraterial to slrow that the seized rice is pDS rice and its illegal transportation, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitiorrers-accused Nos.1 and 2 amounts to abuse of process of the law

8. ln view of the aforesaid discussion, this Criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings agalnst the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C No.1 73 of 2020 on the file of the Judiciat Magistrate of First Class (PDM) at Kamareddy. w. ...,/ I t To, 5 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/.V. KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR S-t SEC FFICER

1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class (PDM) Kamareddy. 2. The Station House Officer, Bhiknoor Police Station, Kamareddy 3. One CC to Sri Somavarapu Satyanarayana, Advocate (OPUC) 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court forthe State of Telangana at Hyderabad.(OUT)

5. Two CD Copies Ks/gh

2.' HIGH COURT DATED:01 10412025 - -1a ,./)7,_,1; \ rt:,. S f^,1 r(- c ) { ,., ,,. 10 sEP 2025 / t *.,"' - r).c ' n."' -. -----t' ORDER CRLP.No.87 of 2022 Allowing the Crl.P. g I / {f