The High Court · 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 o" pr"u""a to suspend the order in so far it relates to directing the petitioner to irirl.6 i"nr guarantee for a sum of Rs. 24,00,000t passed in crt M.p.No. 301 it ZSZS in Ci. Appeal No. 19 of 2025, on the file of the Court of the Principal Oi"triJ.f rOg" at Nizamabad, dated 20-05-2025, thereby release the seized stock ol rice 147O.20 Quintals in favour of the petitioner- This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K VENUMADHAV, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7155 OF 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('lhe BNSS') seeking reconsideration of the conditions imposed in the order dated

20.05.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 301 of 2025 in Crl.A No. 19 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nizamabad and in consequence to release of the seized stock of rice, amounting to 1,470.2O quintals in his favour.

2. I have heard the submissions of Mr. K. Venumadhav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that, upon receiving a complaint from the Station House Officer, Vailpur, regarding the alleged illegal storage of rice procured under the Public Distribution System (PDS), the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Vailpur (hereinafter 'the complainant'), accompanied by independent panch witnesses, conducted an inspection of the rice mill of the petitioner. \-! 2 NTR,] CRLP 7155 2025 During the inspection, the petitioner said to have explained that the rice found at the premises formed part of a total quantity of 3,076.83 quintals, which had previously been seized by authorities in the inspections conducted on 10.03.2024,

09.04.2024, and 13.04.2024 and were subsequently released upon furnishing Bank guarantee and legally obtained possession of the stock under valid release orders. The rice was thereafter transported back to the petitioner's rice mill and a portion of that stock was lawfully sold, and the remaining quantity, specifically 1,470.20 quintals was retained at the mill premises. Nevertheless, suspecting that the petitioner was engaging in the unlawful procurement, storage, and sale of PDS rice, the complainant proceeded to seize that stock. The seizure was carried out on the allegation that the petitioner had contravened Clause 17(e) of the Telangana State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which prohibits unauthorized dealings in PDS commodities. The seized rice was subsequently placed under safe custody. Aggrieved by the seizure, the petitioner approached the District Collector. Upon dismissal of the claim, the petitioner_, 3 Nm,l CRLP 7155 2025 rice. The appellate authority passed the impugned order directing release of the stock, subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee. Dissatisfied with the imposition of such a condition, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Petition seeking appropriate relief Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Civil

4. Supplies authorities, pursuant to mediator's reports dated

10.03 2024, 11.03.2024, 12.03.2024, 09.04.2024, and

13.04.2024, seized a total quantity of 3,076.93 quintals of rice. Challenging the said seiizure, the petitioner filed W.P. Nos. 9542 and 15249 of 2024 before this Court. During the hearing, the learned Government Pleader informed the Court that the seized stock had been put up for auction, and the bid was knocked down in favour of the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.52,30,7811. Upon due consideration and satisfaction, this Hon'ble Court directed that the seized stock be released to the petitioner upon furnishing a bank guarantee for the equivalent amount of Rs.52,30,781/-, as the auction purchaser failed to remit the bid amount. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted the requisite bank guarantee, and the stock was released in his favour through 4 NTR,] CRLP 7155 2025 proceedings issued by the District Collector dated 09.08.2024 and

10.10 2024 Following the release, the petitioner sold approximately '1 ,600 quintals of rice on various dates between 12.10.2024 and

24.10.2024. The remaining balance of 1,476.93 quintals was retained at the petitioner's rice mill. ln this context, officials of the Civil Supplies Department once again inspected the rice mill on

07.11.2024 and seized 1,470.20 quintals of rice, alleging violation of provisions under Section 6-4 of the Essenfla/ Commodities Act,

7955. Pursuant to this, the Collector (Civil Supplies), Nizamabad passed an order daled 17.02.2025 directing confiscation of the seized stock. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal in Crl.A. No. 19 oI 2025 and filed Crl.M.P. No. 301 of 2025 therein, sought for suspension of the confiscation order and release of the 1 ,470.20 quintals of rice. The Appellate Court, however, imposed a condition requiring the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.24,00,000/- without duly considering the factual matrix, particularly that the very same rice stock had already been released earlier upon furnishing a bank g uarantee. 5 NTR,] CRLP 7155 2025 Learned counsel further submits that while the petitioner is willing to comply with laMul conditions, furnishing a second bank guarantee for Rs.24,00,000/- in respect of the same stock, against which security has already been provided would result in undue hardship. Accordingly, he prays that the condition be modified to permit release of the stock upon execution of a personal bond backed by third-party property security. Thus seeks indulgence of this Court.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the rice stock seized on 07.11.2024 is part of the same stock previously seized on 10.03.2024, 11.03.2024,

12.03.2024, 09.04.2024, and 13.04.2024 and whether the earlier bank guarantee encompasses the stock seized during the subsequent inspection on 07 .11.2024 involves factual determination and examination of . evidentiary material. Nonetheless, considering that the petitioner is ready to provide alternative security, he submits that the petition may be considered on its merits. I have perused the materials on record.

6. 7 . The petitioner contends that the rice stock seized during March and Aprll 2024 was subsequently released to him upon 6 NTR,J cRLP_7I55_2025 furnishing a bank guarantee' in compliance with the directions issuedbythisHon'bleCourtinthewritpetitionsfiledearlier.The petitioner further asserts that the rice stock seized on 07 '11'2024 is part of the very same consignment that was previously released, or is otherwise connected to it, is an issue that necessitates a factual determination and shall be appropriately adjudicated in the appeal on its merits. Nevertheless, for the limited purpose of releasing the seized stock into interim custody pending adjudication, the Appellate Court directed the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs 24,00,000/-. Considering the submissions advanced by the petitioner, and particularly in view of the fact that he is willing to furnish alternate security in a different form, this Court finds no objection to modifying the condition imposed by the Appellate Court, especially bearing in mind the perishable nature of the seized rice stock.

8. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The condition imposed in the impugned order is hereby modified, directing that the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Four Lakhs only), supported by one surety who shall annex a property schedule of equivalent 7 NTR, ] cRLp 7155 2025 value. All other conditions of the impugned order shall remain unaltered Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR sEc ON OFFICER To, 1 z J

4. The Principal District Judge at Nizamabad District. One CC to SRl. K VENUMADHAV Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana Two CD Copies MKN/gh fi- ? HIGH COURT DATED:0710712025 ORDER CRLP.No.7155 ot 2025 d1 E S rt 14: Bc ( 3 0 JlJL 2[25 D )o :) a I \\ \ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION qA- 3 2)