The High Court · 2025

Hyderabad. Sri Katam Chandra Rajeshwar Rao, S/o Not known to the Petitioners,^Aged Supplies Office' ,iol'il 5s V.J*, Occ. Deputy Tahasildar, Ll9 Olo ,Dist'Civil Clffuctniaie, Kamareddy iowh and dist (Old Nizamabad District) 2 ...2nd res Pond e nUCom Pla ina nt PetitionunderSection528ofBNSSprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may o" pre"..o to call for the records in connection with c.c.No.173 of 2020 on the file'of court of Judicial lt/lagistrate of First class (PDM) Kamareddy and quash the c.c.No..173 of 2020 against the petitioners/Accused No.'l and 3 herein. r.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 oj-fne 6" pi."""A to stay of all further proceedings including 9qqe1qn9e p"tiiion.r in C.C.No.173 ol 2O2o on the file of Court of Judicial Magistrate of First blass (PDM) at Kamareddy, pending disposal of the main Crl' Petition' This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of GroundsofCriminalPetitionanduponhearingtheargumentsofSriSomavarapu Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri D Arun Kumar' Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents' The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO.4955 0F 2oi25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is frled undei Section 52g of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short .the BNSS) to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A.3 in C.C.No. i73 of 2O2O on the Iile of Judicial Magistrate of first Class (PDM) at Kamareddy. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 42O of Indian penal Code and under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. I \

2. Heard Sri Somavarapu Satyanarayana, iearned counsei for the petitioner as well as Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents. perused the \ I record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the order dated O 1,.O4.2O2S tn Criminal Petition No.87 of 2022.

4. Learned Additional public prosecutor also submitted that the issue in the present criminal petiLion is covered by the eariier order in the above criminal petition. 2 In view of the said representation and as the matter is

5. squarely covered by the order in the above criminal petition, this cr:iminal petition is allowed in terms of the above said order' adopting the reasoning contained therein' The proceedings against the petitioner/A.3 in C'C'No'173 of 2O2O on the frle of Judicial Magistrate of hrst Class (PDM) at Kamareddy are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed SD/- A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIO OFFICER To,

1. The Judrcial Magistra_te of First Class (pDM) Kamareddy I ? lh"_*Iiol lgrT officei. Bhiknoor poiice Siation, Kamaieddy District. , J. rwo ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at , Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Somavarapu Satyanarayana, Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies -- . .(Annexed a Copyof orderdated O1_04_2O2Sin Crlp.No.gT of ZO22) Kam/gh a.., I HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 I ,,\ !'\:r ILj O 1Ei-,r 9E e. .$ $* <o \ ) iV\ * ..c C2 4t J-' \), ir ORDER CRLP.No.4955 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 6 , THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTTCE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINA L 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 Magistrate 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 lVlr. 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, the de facto complainant, who is the Depr;ty Tahsildar and civll supply task force team conducted vehicle check of a. lorry bearing No.RJ 11 GB 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 :.,='$. 'i 2 panchanama. Thereafter, the de facto complainant registered a case as per Clause 6-4 of the Telangana State public Distribution System (Control) Order, 201 6 (for short, 'Control Order, 2016,).

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are the Driver and Owner of the lorry and the lorry was taken on hire basis. The seized rice which was being transported by the petitioners herein is supported by way bill, but the de facto complainant alleging the said rice as pDS 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 or card holders are examined nor any material was produced by the prosecution.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the rice is schedule commodity, but not an essential commodity. As per Clause 3 of the Control Order,2016, dated 29;09.2016, any dealer may freely buy, stock, sell, transport, distribute, dispose, acquire, 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 t, schedule commodity, the de facfo 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 6-4 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 transportation 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.'l and 2 riabre for prosecution. No materiar is produced by the prosecution to show that the accused No.3 in the crime has purchased the PDS rice from any fair shop dearers or card horders. None of the fair shop dealers or card horders were examined. Even if accused No.3- owner of rice miil had purchased pDS rice from the consumers, it cannot be an offence as he will be purchasing the same by paying money to them and as he is not interrupting the process of distribution of rice to the card holders. There is no prohibition with regard to purchase, sare or storage and transportation of rice and paddy, except the rice which is meant for public distribution. There is no material to show that there is nexus between the owner of the miil-accused No.3 and petitioners- accused Nos.1 and 2 i.e., owner and driver of the lorry. ln the absence of any materiar to show that the seized rice is pDS rice and its illegal transportation, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 amounts to abuse of process of the law. 8' rn view of the aforesaid discussion, this criminar petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in c.c.No.'r 73 of 2o2o on the fire of the Judiciar Magistrate of First Class (PDM) at Kamareddy. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Date'. 01.04.2025 JUWADI SRIDEVI, J