The High Court · 2025

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

2. Sri. Ginguri Vinod, S/o. Ramulu, Age. 49 Years, Occ. Dy. Tahsildar (CS)' Armoor, Nizamabad District, Pincode. 5O3224. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS 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. 665 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Judicial lt/lagistrate of First Class at Armoor. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 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. 665 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor. including appearance and attendance of the Petitioners/Accused No1, and 2 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 G. Raghu, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jitender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 . The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA Dt: /l EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15367 of 202i ORDER:- 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Se tion 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2CI 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accr- s ed Nos.1 & 2 in C.C.No.665 of 2024, on the file of the learne, I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, regir tered for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of Blrl, 2023 and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955

2. Heard Sri G.Raghu, learned counr;, I for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 as well as Sri litender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosec.l or appearing for the respondent No.1- State.

3. The specific allegation against the petitioner ; is that they used to procure PDS Rice from the card holders r Morthad at cheaper rate and used to sell the same on higher 1 rice for profit and on 06.08.2025 at about 11.30 A.M., the ptr tioners were found in possession of 176 bags of PDS Rice we lhing around

120.50 Quintals. 2 EID,' Crl.P.No.rB57 2025

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary alleging that the Rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent, charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations leveled against the petitioners cannot be sustained. 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 herein are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that as per prosecution, the offences said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Sections 7 and B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and hence requested to pass appropriate orders.

6. Perused the material available on record.

7. Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supplf distribution and trade of essential commodities or 3 ETD] Crl.P No-1536r_2025 abetment in this regard, is punishable. As per the prc secution, the petitioners herein had procured PDS rice from thr: local people after supply from the dealer \

8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.Nc.'227 ot 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that . I t "There is no averment indicating that the petitioners i, any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to paft with ttlt supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice ptrhased by them with the petitioners and they dishonestly misac )ropriated or convefted to lheir own use or used it in violation f a lawful diection or contract. ln the absence of essential fac\ rs, on the face of prosecution, this Court finds it to be a fif case I t exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 20? ' Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioners r abuse of process of law."

9. The facts and circumstances of the present ;ase also are similar to those in the above case and hence, this tl turt finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section of BNSS, 2023 by applying the same analogy and r( quash the '28 proceedings against the petitioners herein.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allcn red and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Irl|s.1 & 2 in 4 Crl,P,No.15367 2025 C.C.No.665 of 2024, on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, are hereby quashed. 11 . Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed . SD/. U. SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Armoor. 2. The Station House Officer, Morthad Police Station, Nizamabad District. 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

4. One CC to Sri. G. Raghu, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies. PMiSa HIGH COURT DATED:2411112025 / I ORDER CRLP.No.15367 of 2025 _ :----:=.. .- , .,rl: tr,., l':r-. ._.) ttI l?. 2025 )l <. , ,/. ' ,"' ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION