Shaik Ahmed v. The State of Telangana
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Learned counsel fbr the petitioner would submit that without there being anv complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the nce was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging thc petitioner fbr prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations, even taken at his…
- Para 88. The facts and circumstances of the present 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 528 of BNSS by applylng the same analogy and to quash the…
Judgment
Sri. B. Vijaykanth Rao, S/o Late Chalapathi, Occ. Deputy Tahasildar (CS) Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. Pincode. 503001 . ...Respondents/Complai nant 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 impugned proceedings in c.c.No. I 108 of 2021 , on the file of the ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad, against the Petitioner/Accused l.A. NO: 2OF 2026 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 grant interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No. 1 108 of 2021 , on the file of the ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad, including appearance and attendance of the Petitioner/Accused, 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 Gaje Raghu, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and ofnone appearedforthe RespondentNo.2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8942 of 2026 Date: 18.06.2026. Between: Shaik Ahmed AND ...Petitioner The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad and another ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings 1n C.C.No.1l08 of 2021, on the file of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad.
2. Heard Mr.G.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 .
The specific allegation against the petitioner/accused is that he has procured pOS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to 2 sell the sanre for profit and on 14.02.2020, the petitioner was found in possession of 275 plastic bags of PDS rice totalling 117.60 quintals
Learned counsel fbr the petitioner would submit that without there being anv complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the nce was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging thc petitioner fbr prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations, even taken at his flace value cannot be sustained against thc petitioner. Further, thrs Court, in Crl.P.No.5709 of 2019, while considering the same situation, categorically obserued that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein could not be continued and accordingly quashed the proceedings. The petitioner is also entrtled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against thc petitioner
The leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the ofl'ences said to have been comrnitted by the petitioner is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act') and requested to pass appropriate orders
Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities, is punishabie. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer. j. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No'7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: "There is no avermenl indicating thdt the petitioner in any way d.eceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the benef.ciary entnlste(l the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation ofa lawful direction or contract' In the absence of essential factors, on the face of prrtsecution, this Court finds to be afi.t case to exercise the jurisdiction under Sectittn 528 ofBNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse ofprocess of law".
Operative part
The facts and circumstances of the present 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 528 of BNSS by applylng the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein' g. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No-1108 of 2021, ot the file of leamed ll 4 Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad, against the petitioner/accused, are hereby quashed Pending misr:ellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed To, Sd/.A. SREENIVASA REDDY NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ ASSIS S TION OFFICER
The ll Additional Judicial lvlagistrate of First Clas-s at Nizamabad 2. The Station Uouse Otticer' i]"t'O'O Rural Police Station Nizamabad District' 3. Two CCs to the Public p'o'""uto'' High Court for the State of Telangana' at + One CC to Sri Gaie Raghu Advocate [OPUCI 5. Two CD CoPies Hyderabad (OUT) DL/BA Vk HIGH COURT DATED: 1810612026 ORDER CRLP.No.8942 of 2026 TASe H1 t e ( o L) ;? 4 JUI'I 2026 z o .I t O6:s c 'AT * ALLOWING CRIMINAL PETITION b ,teL c9 5*
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528; Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — s. 7.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Telangana High Court, on 18 Jun 2026. The bench was SREENIVAS RAO.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.