Gajarao Gopi & Anr. v. The State of Telangana

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

Mechu Venkateswarlu, S/o. Mallaiah, Age. 53 years, Occ: Deputy Tahsildar Civil Supply, Rlo. Chaitanya Nagar, Khammam District. ... RESPON D ENTS/COMPLAINANTS l 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.1301l2O25 on the fite of the tll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Khammarn, Khammam District. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt/fiemorandum of Grounds of Crirninal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners in CC.No.130112025 on the fi{e of the lll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Khammam, Khammam District during the pendency of Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the' Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P Animi' Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None aopeared for Respondent no.2. The Court made the following: ORDER AT I{YDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO Date:12.02.2026 Between: Gajarao Gopi and another AND ..Petitioners The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana and another .Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1301 of 2025, on the f,rle of the learned [I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Ill Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Khammam, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.l and 2, for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act').

2. Heard Mr. P.Animi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners andrMr. M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 I 2

The specific allegation against the petitiqners/ accused Nos.l and2is that they have procured PDS rice from the deneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 12.03.2025 at about 23:30 P.M., the petitioners were found in possessioir of 485 packets of PDS rice totalling204.10 quintals.

Learned counsel for the paitioners would submit that without there being any complaint from any benefi ciary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations, even taken at their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Court, in Crl.p.No.5709 of 2019, while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein could not be continued and accordingly quashed the proceedings. The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

The learned Additional Pubtic Prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the offences said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the EC Act and requested to pass appropriate orders. / 3

Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the producti'on, supply, distribution'and trade of essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have prccured PDS rice -from ttre beneficiaries after supply from the dealer. \ \

A Coordinate Benctt 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 petitioner in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaies to part with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or usd it in iolation of a lawful direction or contract. In the absence of essential factors, on the face of proseeution, this Courtfnds it to be aJit case to exercise theiuisdiction under Section 528 o/8NSS' 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law".

The facts and circumstances of the present case also similar to those in the above case and hence, this Court f,rnds it to be a frt case to exercise jurisdiaion und€r Section 528 of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.