The High Court · 2025

District, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ... Respondent

2. Bathini Shivashankara Vara Prasad, S/o. Laxmirajam, Age. 43 Years, Occ. Food lnspector (CS), Karimnagar, R/o, H. No. 4-96/'1l0, Saraswathinagar, Karimnagar Proper and District. ...RespondenUDe facto 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 charge sheet in C.C. No. 1000 of 2017, on the file of ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Karimnagar. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 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 stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/Accused No s. '1 to 6, in C.C. No. 1000 ol 2017, on the file of ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Karimnagar. 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, the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.'l and None appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: OROER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No. '13635 o12024 ORDER:- This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short'BNSS, 2023') seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.1000 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, against the petitioners/ accused Nos.l to 7.

2. Heard Mr.K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for petitioners/ accused Nos.l to 7, Mr.lithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 7 in C.C.No.1000 of 2017 for the offences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short'the act').

4. The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 7 is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 24.09.2076 at 14:30 hours, they were found in possession of 387.10 quintals of PDS rice.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary, the rice was procurd 2 NIRJ (lUl' lt6t; r0ll deceptively or with a criminal intent, charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations on its face value cannot be sustained against the alleged offences. Further, this Court in Crl.P.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 33493 of 2015 white considering the self same situation categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioner therein cannot be continued and quashed the proceedings. The petitioners herein also entiUed to same relief, hence prayed for quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. I have perused the material on record.

7. As per the prosec,ution, this offence said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the Act. B. Section 7 of the act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply. distribution and trade of essential commodities or abatement in this regard is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer. The situation does not amount either intervening with the supply or distribution or trade of the pDS rice, as the materiar rice had reached the beneficiary.

9. That apart, there is no averment indicating that the petitioners in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied 3 NIRJ (RlI l ]6.1i lltr PDS rice or and beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioners and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contract. In the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution this Court finds it fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS. Further, in Crl.P.No.1375B of 2018 a Coordinate bench of this Court has considered identical case facts and drawn similar conclusions. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioners is found abuse of process.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1000 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, against the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 7 are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. To, ) //TRUE COPY// SD/- T. JAYASREE PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. 2. J. 4.

5. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Karimnagar. The Station House Officer, KNR lTown Police Station, Karimnagar District. One CC to Sri K Venumadhav, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies SM/gh W HIGH COURT DATED: 2310712025 / I \ r tlt, :.i /,1;s ?9JUT M ,, ,,/ t tt< ' "'c-' ORDER CRLP.No.13635 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 1 T