The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS Act, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners/Accused No.2 & 3 in F.l.R. No.805 of 2024 On the file of the XlVlh. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Petition. a This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr P VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY, Advocate representing Mr SOMAVARAPU SATYANARAYANA, Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr M. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 & 2 The Court made the following: ORDER I' 7 i.l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEL,I \GANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOU RABLE SMT. JUSTICE JU WADII; TIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.14 645 ot 2024 Between: V.Narsrmha and another 23 DECE MBER 2025 The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor and another AND :ORDER: Petrtioners Iespondents This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 523 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ,BN{ S,), by the petitioners-accused Nos 2 and 3 seeking to quash th: proceedings agarnst them in F.l R.No.B05 of 2024 of p.S. Mac hura Nagar, registered for the offences punishable under Secticrs 61(2) and 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ,2023 and Sectir n 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short the ,Act,)

2. Heard Mr. p.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learn rd counsel representing Mr. Somavarapu Satyanarayana, Iearnec counsel for the petitioners and [/r. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learrr, d Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent Nos.1 an: 2_State and perused the record. 3 The allegation against the petitioners is that 1t ey are Fair Price Shop Dealers and they have unlaMully diverted ;r rd sold pDS (t 2 rice to accused No.'l , who in turn sold the said rice to accused No.5, thereby facilitating illegal trade in essential commodities, which are meant for public distribution.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are Fair Price Shop Dealers and are innocent of the offences alleged against them. They have been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the basis of confession of accused No.'l . Nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioners. There is no material to establish that accused No.1 had purchased PDS rice from the petitioners. Further, no samples of rice or wheat were lifted for analysis to ascertain as to whether the seized commodity was PDS rice or not. ln the absence of any cogent evidence' continuationoftheproceedingsagainstthepetitionersisanabuseof process of the Court, and therefore, learned counsel prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners' 5 On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition stating that specific allegations are levelled against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioners can only be known after conducting full-fledged investigation and trial Hence, he prayed to disrhiss the petition. 3

6. Having heard the submissions of the lear I )d counsel appearing on both sides and upon perusal of the mate,r al available on record, it is evident that the petitioners are Fair price Shop Dealers. They were arrayed as accused in the crime ; )lely on the basis of confession statement of accused No.1 mad: before the Police which is inadmissible in evidence.

7. To attract an offence under Section 316(5) of BNrl (previously section 409 of rpc), the prosecution must estabris-r that the accused, acting in the capacity of a public seryant, wa; entrusted with the property and pursuant to such entrustment, tre property was dishonesfly misappropriated or converted for persorr rr use.

8. Even assuming that pDS rice was entrusted to th: petitioners in the capacity of pubric servants, for distribution to the br neficiaries, there is absolutely no material to establish that the s;r J rice was dive(ed to the brack market without distributing to the rr rneficiaries and thereby the beneficiaries have made a complaint thil they were denied the benefit of getting the pDS rice. Significanfly, o analysis was conducted to establish that the rice seized from acr.rsed No..l was PDS rice. Further, the lnspection Reports reveit I that the variations found were wrthin the permissible limits, there: I negating the allegation of misappropriation. These vital aspecrs vr, re neither \:-El - 4 disputed nor controverted by the rearned Additionar pubric Prosecutor. In the absence of any evidence proving dishonest misappropriation of entrusted property by the petitioners, or even confirming that the seized rice was pDS rice, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 316(5) of BNS (previously Section 409 of lpC) are not made out.

9. With regard to the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. it is well setfled that the said provision is purely penal in nature and can be invoked only upon proof of contravention of a Control Order issued under Section 3 of the Act, which is a srne qua non for attracting the said offence. ln the present case, the prosecution has failed to specify or establish that the petitioners have violated the statutory Control Order governing the storage, distribution, or sale of essential commodities. Since the petitioners herein are Fair price Shop Dealers and the prosecution has neither alleged nor estabrished any specific contravention of the appricabre Control Order, Section 7 of the Act is not applicable to them. '10. lnsofar as the offence under Section 61(2) ot BNS (previously 120-8 of IPC) is concerned, the prosecution has failed to place any material to prove the existence of an agreement or meeting of minds between the petitioners and the co_accused to commit any illejal 5 act. In the absence of proof of the principal offence, he charge of criminal conspiracy cannot be sustained independenfl,r 11 ln view of the foregoing discussion, this Co trt is of the considered vrew that the contrnuation of proceedinglr against the petitioners herein amounts to abuse of process of law rnd the same are liable to be quashed.

12. This Criminal Petition is accordingly allo,r :d and the proceedings against the petitioners_accused Nos and 3 in F.l.R.No.805 of 2024 of p S. Madhura Nagar, are here I y quashed Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any shall star I closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/. N. SRIHARI DE PUTY REGISTRAR \ I ;ECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The XIV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyc t rabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Madhura Nagar police Staticr Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the StzLt : oi Telangana, at 4. One CC to Mr. P VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY Adv: ;ate, representing 5. Two CD Copies Mr SOMAVARAPU SATYANARAYANA, Advocate [C) Hyderabad. [OUT] ,UC] t RCi Sa 1Vc ,Jl-) HIGH COURT DATED: 2311212025 I I 1: O -a --,-:\\ 1 \ LLI' ) ,:, \ ,1., -\ \\ \s- * ORDER ! CRLP.No.14645 of 2024 i( () u- |,,.) \ i ,y2 .ii Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Al owed. .'l-,<- I tZ zG