The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

2. Sri. B. Vijay Kanth Rao, S/o. Chalapathi Rao, Aged 37 years, Occ. Deputy Tahsildhar (CS), Nizamabad. ...Respondents/Complainant Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased toto quash the impugned proceedings in C.C.No. 658 of 2021, on the file of the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise at Nizamabad. l.A. NO: zOF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of 8.N.S S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crrminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interirn slay of all further proceedings in C-C.No. 658 of 2021, on the file of the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise at Nizamabad, including appearance and attendance of the petitioners / Accused Nos. 1 and 2 pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing th: Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing th: arguments of Sri Gaje Raghu, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri V.Jithen(Jr r Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CR!M!NAL PETITION No.14468 ot 2O25 ORDER:- 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.658 of 2021, on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise at Nizamabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023, Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act' 1955.

2. Heard Sri G.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1- State.

3. ine specific allegations against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are that the petitioners herein have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 05.03.2020 at about 20.15 hours, the petitioners were found in possession of 52 bags of PDS rice weighing around

17.80 Quintals. 2 fTOJ Cd.P.No.1446a 2025

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would furth': ' submit that without there being any complaint from any benefic ary alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a crimir al intent and charging the petitioners for prosecution is un'=nable and improper. The allegations on their face value canno. re sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Court in Crl.[) Nos.5709 of 2019 and 33493 of 2015 while considering the sa ne situation, categorically observed that the offences allegerl against the petitionerc therein cannot be continued and r uashed the proceedings. The petitioners herein is also entitle<i to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedingl: against the petitioners.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor sutr nitted that as per prosecution, the offence said to have been cotr mitted by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Sections 7 cl the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and hence requested to per: s appropriate orders

6. Perused the material available on record. 3 EIOJ Crl-P-r{o.1/u6a,m25

7. Sections 7 of the Essential Commodities Act contemplate that any person @ntravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities or abetment in this regard, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer.

8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P-No.7227 of 2O25 has considered the identical facts and observed that:- 'There is no avefirent indicating that the petitioners in any way deceptivety induced the benef,ciaries to paft with the swplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitionerc and they dishonestly misappropriated or convefted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contad. ln the absence of essential factors, on the face of pro*c.rtion, this Coutt finds it to be a fit case to exercise the juriscliction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2O23- Thus' continuance of proeedings against the petitioners is abuse of proce ss of law ' "

9. The facE and circumstances of the present case also are similar to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit c€lse to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS'

2023.by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. 4 CIOJ cd.P No 14464 2025

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allovr, rd and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2 in C.C.No.658 of 2021, on the file of Special Judicial lagistrate of First Class, Excise at Nizamabad, are hereby quashr: I

11. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall st tnd closed. //TRUE COPY// T ABDULLA KHAN I ANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER ,i): I 7- To, '1 . The Speciat Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 2. The station House officer, Nizamabad v rN porice s ation, Nizamabad N : rmabad Drstrict

3. One CC to Srr Gaje Raghu, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CCs to Public prosecutor, High Court for the State of - 5. Two CD Copies. elangana. [OUT] YJR/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:0711112025 ORDER CRLP.No.14468 ot 2025 ( IHE S q,a -')'c(J i-il, 3i'] l ll]2F \ * oiSPATI\ * ALLOWING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITIO] I. g J