The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT 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 and set aside the proceedings in C C. No.295 of 20'18 arising from Crime No.12 of 2018 of the Police Station Madaram on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class Bellampalli. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 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 stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners in C.C.No. 295 ol 2018 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Bellampalli 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. R. LAXMINARASIMHA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1230 of 2O25 ORDER This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioners,,accused Nos.1 , 2, 3 and 5 under Section 528 of Bharatiya .Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('for short 'BNSS, 2023,) seeking quashment of proceedings in C.C,No.295 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial lVlagistrate of First Class, Bellampalli, Mancherial District, regrstered for the offences under Sections 120(b) and 420 read with 34 IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Comrnodities Act,

2. Heard Sri R.Lakshmi Narsimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Jithender Rao Veer;rmalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the res,pondent No.1_ State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners su bmits that the specific allegation against the petitioners is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to serll the same for profit and on 09.02.20'18 at about 08.00 hrs, the petitioners were found in possession of 20 tonnes pDS rice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners woulcl further submit that without there being any complaint from any beneliciary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptivery or with a crininar intent and ../ z EfOJ charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper. The arregations on their face varue cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Court in Crl.p.Nos.5ZO9 of 2019 and 33493 of 2015 while considering the same situation, categoricaily observed that the offences aileged against the petitioners therein cannot be continued and quashed the proceedings. The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. The learned Additional public prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the offence said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and vioration of sections 7 and g of the Essential Commodities Act, .1g55 and requested to pass appropriate orders.

6. Perused the material available on record. 7. Sections 7 and g of the Essential Commodities Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essentiar commodities or abetment in this regard, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer.

8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.p. No7Z27 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: 3 "There is no averment indicating that the petitioners in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted :he pDS rice purchased by them with the petitioners and they dishones y misappropriated or converted to their own use cr used it in violaticn of a lawful direction or contract. ln tht,r absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 52g of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioners is abuse of process of law." 9 The facts and circumstances of the p-esent case also similar to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section t,2g of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein. 10 Accordingly, the Criminal petition is ;rllowed and the proceedings in C C.No 295 of 2018, pending on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Cl;rss, Bellampalli, Mancherial District, against the petitioners-accused Nos.i, 2, 3 and 5, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- T SRINIVASA REDDY 4FSSTANT RECISTRAR ,\ r ', I sEcroN oFFtcER ,.'.l To,

1. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bellampalli. 2. The Station House Offrcer, Police Station Madaram, Mancherial District. 3. One CC to Sri. R. LAXMINARASIMHA RAO, Advocate rOpUCl. 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the: State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT].

5. Two CD Copies 4, TTS/PSL -.'.n HIGH COURT DATED: 1410812025 ORDER CRLP.No.1230 ol 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED 1 Yv a 16 ',. .i: 'i\ ;\ ? 2 sEP 206 i li -t \ !). \: J',-r)l ra. r,_ r. I