The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad. Sri. Ir,4yaka Srinivas, S/o. Sayanna, Aged 50 year, Occ:Deputy Tahasildhar (CS), Nizamabad, Rl/o. H.No. 5-11-25, Yeliammagutta, Nizamabad Town and District. Pincode - 503003 ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that ln the circumstances stated in the N,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may tre pleased to pleased to quash the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.1715 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court at Nizamabad. l.A. NO: 2 OF 202s Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the ltrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No. 1715 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Special Mobile Court at Nizamabad., including appearance and attendance of the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the ltrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri GAJE RAGHU, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E. Gaesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for Respondent no.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA I EVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14806 ot 2A2t ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners i ccused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 528 o: Bharatiya Nagarik Sura <sha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking quashment of 'roceedings in C.C.No.1715 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judici: [Vlagistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nizamabad, rec i ;tered for the offences under Section 420 of lndian Penal Code, '1 360 (for short 'lPC'), Section 7 of the Essential Commodrties Act, 1! I 5 and Section 17(e) of the Telangana State Public Distribution S'r,tem (Control) Order,2016

2. Heard Sri G.Raghu, learned counsel for he petitioners as well as Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Pub c Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1 -State

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners strl mits that the specific allegation against the petitioners is that they lave procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to so the same for profit and on 07.1 1.2023, the petitioners were found i.r possession of

474.11 quinlals of PDS rice

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners woull further submit that without there being any complaint from any benel ciary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a crirr nal intent and 2 charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper The allegations on their face value-cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Court in Crl.P.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 33493 of 2015 while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein cannot be continued and quashed the proceedings. The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners

5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the offence said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and requested to pass appropriate orders.

6. Perused the material available on record

7. Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities in this regard, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer. B. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that "There is no averment indicating that the petitioners in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice ,-'"' 3 purchased by them with the petitioners and the;, misappropriated or converted to their own use r r violation of a IaMul direction or contract. ln the essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this () to be a fi, case lo exercise the jurisdiction under Sr,( BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings i petitioners rs abuse of process or law." l ishonestly used it in bsence of rurt finds it tion 528 of gainst the

9. The facts and circumstances of the pr: ;ent case also similar to those in the above case and hence, thrs Cor rt finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 5 2 I of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceeci rgs against the petitioners herein. 1 0. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is a I rwed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1715 of 2023 on the file r ,f the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Cot t, Nizamabad, against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2, are herc ,y quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall st: rd closed. Sd/- AHI\II :D ABDULLA KHAN ASIiI ;TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Judicial First Class, Special tt/obile Court at Nizarn I tad. 2. The Station House Officer, Nizamabad lllTown Police rl ation, Nrzamabad District.

3. OneQQ to SRI GAJE RAGHU Advocate [OPUC] +.r{h$'FiiOtic Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Tela I tana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad.(OUT)

5. Two CD Copies chrk/pr \({- HIGH COURT DATED:1311112025 ORDER CRLP.No.14806 of 2025 () {-. 11 ,/ Ot \ . ,\r\ ),\ ?[a ".i .:.,' CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED. $ ,@ fu"