The High Court · 2025

AND y its Public prosecutor, High Court for the ...RESPONDENT Constable PC-3397. ...RESPONDENT/ DEFACTO . COMPLAINANT 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 C.C.No.434 of 2O2S on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile) at Nalgonda against the petitioner, in the interest of Justice. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the hrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No 4 in C.C No.434 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile) at Nalgonda pending disposal of the Petition This Petition corning on for hearing, upon perusing the ltlermorandum of GroundsofCriminalPetitionandUponhearingthearguments Mr. SOMAVARAPU SATYANARAYANA' Advocate for the Petitioner and JITHENDERRAoVI:ERAMALLA,theAdditionalPublicProsecutor(TG) behalf of respondent lJo.1 None appeared for the Respondent No 2 Mr- The Court made the {ollowing: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRlltJllNAL PETITION No. 6244 oF 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.434 of 2025 pending on the fiie of the learned Judicial [/agistrate of First Class (Speclal Mobile), Nalgonda.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4 in the Calendar Case registered for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of Bhai"atiya Nyaya Sannlta 2023 (for short 'BNS, 2023') and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act,1955 (for short,'EC Act').

3. Heard Mr. Somavarapu Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. ..jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.'1

4. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 22.12.2024, respondent No.2 along r,,rith another Police Constable while conducting patrolling duties irr Thipparthi lt/andal, at about 7.20 AM, on suspicion they sropped the vehicle Tata lntra Mini Goods Vehicle bearing registration No. TG 30 T O5B1 proceeding from Miryalaguda and on ,search they found vvhite colour plastic bags (50) in number contaihigg i ' 2 \ /r./ , .i,.'... /;: l1 ,),'-'0:; PDS rice. Allegirrg that (43) quintals of Public Distributiotr Rice was being transporting in mini goods vehicle in order to sell the iame to the petitioner/accusetl No.4, a Police Report was lodged against the petitioner and otlrers and the said rice and the vehtc;le \,vere seized under the cover cf panchanama-

5. Learned ccrunsel for the petitioner would subnrit :hat the petitioner has not committed any offence much less the alleged cffences and his implication in thrr case is solely based on the confessi,)nal statements of co-accused porsons, which are inadmissible as evidernc= against the petitioner. Furth,-.r denied the allegation that the petiticn,:r intends to purchase the PDS rice from other accused. Learned courrsel contends that aside from lhe inadmissible confessional statements of co-accused persons, there s no substantive material evidence linking hrm to the alleged offence:;. He further relies on the judgments of tl're Coordinate Benches of this Hon'ble Court, wherein, under similar circumstances, it was held that a co-accused's confessional statem,:nt. by itself, is insufficient to establish culpability and the essentral ingredients of cheating under Section 318(4) of BNS were not macie or,rt and that the allegations uncler Section 7 of EC Act were untenabre due to the absence of necessary foundational elements. AC .the criminar proc,eedinss ,";:^ --:'|:'"'" -_ against the petitioner .,,. Accordircry prayed that be quashed 3 N'rR,/ Cr/.P.Na. 6214 of 2025

6. The learned Additional public prosecutor submitted that the question of petitioner's invorvement in retairing the pDS rice requires adjudication during the course of triar. rt was further contended that the contents of the charge sheet, along with the mediators, report, form part of the evidentiary material, which must be evaluated during the trial proceedings. ln ilght of the foregoing, the learned prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the present petition 7 I have perused the materials on record

8. The allegation levelled against the petitioner he has been interrupting the process of public Distribution System by purchasing PDS rice from other accused ifiegaily and retairing the same at higher prices. There is no record to that effect except confessional statements of co-accused, which were made before the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.

9. lt is well settled that such confessional statements, made to a Police Officer and not supported by any independent or corroborative evidence, are inadmissible against a co-accused. Additionally, there is no averment indicating that the petitioner any way deceptively I I induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or beneficiaries entrusted the PDS rice supplied to them with the petitioner and the petitioner dishonestly misappropriated or converted his own 4 \iil./ ,-, . t.1, r'-11 rt: ){tli use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contra()t ln the absence of any prima facie material establishing the essentiai ingredients of cherting under section 318(4) of BNS or Section 7 of the EC Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation cf the criminal proceedirgs against the petitioner would amount 1o an abuse of the process o' law' Accordingly' the criminai f,'rrc(:'i'|'rgs pe:'c'it'c against the petiti<lner in the Calendar Case are liable to be quashed' 10. For the afrlresaid' the Criminal Petition is allowecl Consequentiy all proceedings in CC' No 434 of 2025' on the file ofthe learned Judiciar Magistr.ate of First class (special Mobire) Nalgonda' are hereby quashecl against the petitioner/accused No 4' Pending miscellaneous applications' if any' shalr stzrnd ciosed SD/- S.MAT,LIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTAN'I REGISTRAR I /\1 \ --:;__ //TRUE COPY// :;ECTION OFFICER To. 1, The Judicial First CIaSS Magistrate (Special MobiIe) a1 Nalgonda 2. The station House Officer, Thipparthy Police Station, Nalgonda Dist. ' Iyo""Pr?"ri',3?r7io"" 4. One CC to Vlr. SOMAVARAPU SATYANARAYANA, Advrcate tOpUCl 5. Two CD Co cies Prosecutor, H(lh court for the -stakr of Telangana, at R(]/I'S], lq- HIGH COURT DATED: 0210512025 ORDER CRLP.No.6?-44 o12025 rf- 5 rA I€- ') 25 $1 ?$?i \ I ".//.* The Criminral Petition is Allowed. I ro ?-\w@