Shaik Gouse, Slo. Abdul Latheef v. The State of Telangana

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

Sri. P.V.L. Narayana, Occ. Deputy Tahsildhar, Enforcement, Navipet, Nizamabad District. Pincode. 503245. ... Res pondents/Com plainant Petition under Section 528 of the BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the impugned proceedings in C.C.No. 240 of 2020, on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise at Nizamabad. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of the BNSS praying that in the circu.mstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No. 240 of 2020, on tne tte ot ine Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise at Nizamabad, including appearance and attendance of the petitioner/ Accused, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of'Sri Gaje Raghu, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1-State and None appeared for Respondent No.2. The Gourt made the following: ORDER ?',, IN THIE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMA.LA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.187 of 2026 Date:08.01.2026 Betweerr: Shaik Gouse Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Cc'urt of Telangana, at Hyderabad and another Respondents ORDER This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking quashment of proceedings in C.C.No.240 of 2O2A on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Ctass, tixcise at Nizamabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 42O of The lndian Penal Code, 1860 (for. short 'lPC') and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1g5S (for short ). a EC Act' I If 2 aD) Ctt.P-No.187_2026

2. Heard Sri G.Raghu, learhed counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the specific allegation against the petitioner is that he has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 02.02.2020, the petitioner was found in possession of 22.70 quintals of PDS rice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that . the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal,,intent qnd charging the petitioner for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations on his face value cannot be sustained against the petitioner. Further, this Court in Crl.P.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 33493 of 2015 while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein cannot be continued and quashed the proceedings. The petitioner is also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per prgsecution, the offence said to have been committed by the : 3 EID) Ctt P.Ndl87_2026 petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and requested to pass appropriate orders.

Ferused the material available on record.

Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade o'i essential commodities in this regard, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer. B. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 has \ considered the identical facts and observed that: "There is no averment indicating that the petitioners in an'/ way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice ' purchased by them with the petitioners and they dishonestly mis; appropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a Iawful direction or contract. ln the absence of ess; ential factors, on the face of prosecution, this Court finds it to lle a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioners is abuse of process of law. "

The facts and circumstances of the present case also similar to thoser in the above case and hence, this court finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under section s2B of BNSS by applying 4 Ero) Ol.P-No-t8r-2026 n the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.