Veermalli Srinubabu v. The Stale of Telangana & Anr.

The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana. Yerram Kistaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Age. 54 Years, Occ. Dy. Tahasildar(CS), Bhiknoor, R/o. Kamareddy District, Telangana State ...Respondents Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC No. 362 of 2024on the file of the Additional Judicial tVlagistrate of First Class Special filobile at Kamareddy in so far as petitioner/Accused. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings against the petitionersiAccused in CC No. 362 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile at Kamareddy pending disposal of the of main criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ailuri Divakar Reddy ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramallu Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 . The Court made the following: ORDER -,- ,;, ,':] al. HE HI OURT FOR THE ATE OF TELAN HYDERABAD THE I{ON'B SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITI ON No.510 of 2026 Date: 21.01.2A26 Between: Veermalli Srinubabu AND The Stale of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and another .Petitioner ...Respondents ORDER Tlris Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the . Bharatiy,a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in c.c.No.362 of 2024 on the file of learned Additionar Judicial Magistrate of First class and special Mobire at Kamarerddy.

Heard Mr.Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 . .r, '/ 2 J

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 02.04.2024 al 13.30 hours, the petitioner was found in possession of 35 plastic bags 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 and charging the petitioner for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations on his face value cannot be sustained against 'th" petitioner. Further, this Court in Crl.P.Nos.5709 ot 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 prosecution, the offence said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating, violation of Section 7 of the Y 3 Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Hence, requested to pass appropri; rte orders

Perused the material available on record.

Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act contemF,late that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities in this regard, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has procurerJ PDS rice from the beneficiaries afier supply from the dealer. ( 8 A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 hars 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 ricr: purchased by them with the petitioners and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or us, ad it in violation of a lavWul direction or contract. ln the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of prrrceedings against the petitioners is abuse of process of larv. " $. The facts and circumstances of the present case also similar to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to 4 t' be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.