The High Court · 2025

1 The State of Telangana,, Rep. by the Publrc Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana.

2. Ginguri Vinod, S/o. Ramulu, Age 48 years, Occ: Dy. Tahasildar (Enf and CS), Armoor and Balkonda Mandals, RJo. Gandhari Village and Mandal, Kamareddy District, Telangana State. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC No. 263 ol 2022 on the file of the Principal Judicial lvlagistrate of First Class at Armoor in so far as petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 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 Cou( may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings against the petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 in CC No. 263 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Judic al lr,4agistrate of First Class at Arnroor pending disposal of the main criminal J etition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusinly .he lvlemorandum of Grounds of Crim nal Petition and upon hearing the argumer ls cf 5i:i Allurr Divakar Reddy Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri V. Jithender Flac r,/eeramalla. the Addttrona Publrr; Prosecutor on behalf of the Respon(l )r t N,l. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE S I'ATE OF TELANGANA AT IIYDEllAlli\D TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSl'I(]T, J.SRT]ENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PIt'[I'tlON No.l 5932 ot 2025 Date:03.12.2025 Between: Shaik Mujeeb and another The State ol'l'elangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, At Hyderabad and another AND ...petltroners respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has bcen filcd seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.263 o1'2022, on thc Ille of learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. I and 2, fbr the oltbnce punishable under Section 7 of Essential Cornmodities Act, 1955.

2. Heard Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel lor the petitioners and Mr.V.Jithendar Rao, Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. a. .'? )

3. The slrecific alleeation agaiust the petitioners irccuscd Nos.l and 2 is that thcv have ptocured l)[)S ricc lrom the rcnet:r:iaries at cheapcr rate trr sell ihe saute lbr prolit ancl on 27.(r{ ..l02ll at about i6:00 hours. the petitioncrs rvere lirund in possessi,rr o1'224 bags of PI)S rice totallins 143.30 cluintals

4. I.-eamtC counscl fbr thc petitioners rvould sub;nrt that without there be ing complaint f rom any beneficiary, a lr:gine that the rice u'as procured deceptivelv or rvith a crirninal intcrt anrl charging thc petitioncis fbr prosccution is untcnable anC irnpnrper. 'fhe allcgations, ,:r c,r laken at therr face value cann( t be sustainud asainst thc pctitioncrs. [.-urther, this Court, in (]rl I).Nos.5709 of 20 i9 and l-i-i9 of' 20 15, whilc considering thc ;.rrnc jituarion, catccoricallv obscrued that the off'ences alleucC acainst the petitioners thercin coulcl not be continued and accorl nglv quashcd the proceedings. Thc pctitioners are also entitlcd to tlre sitrre relicl and hence prayecl to quash thc procccdings against thc peririoners.

5. The learrrcd Additional Public Prosecutor subrnits that as per prosecution, the offence said to have been cornrrritted by the petitioners is chcalurg and violation of Section 7 c1- the Essential Cornmodities Act, 1955 and requested to pass approf riate orders ..'j 3

6. Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distributron and trade of essential commodities or abetment in this regard, is punishable. As pel the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice tiom the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer

7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7221 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that "Thera is no avermenl lndicating th{rt the petitioner Ln eny iLtv deceptively induced the beneJiciaries to part )rtth the supplied PDS rice or lhe beneficiury entrusted the I'DS rice purchased by them w,irlt the petilioner and they dishonestly misupproprided or co.nverted to lheir own use or used it itt violation of a lawfrl direction or contrect. In the absence of es.scntial factors, on the fuce of Jtroseattion, this Courtfinds it b be a t'it case to exercise thejurixliction under Secnon 528 of BNSS, 2023. 'fhus, continuance of proccedings agoinst thc petitioner is ubuse ofprocess of law".

8. 'lhe facts and circumstances of the present case also similar to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.263 of 2022, on the file of learned Principal '{+. a; 4 Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armo,r', against the petitioners/acc used Nos.1 and 2, are hercbl, quasher1 Pending Lriscellaleo r-rs applications, if any shall stand closed Sd/. NAYANI C.H,\NDRA SEKHAR RAO ' QEPUTY REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPYi/ I ,l,SEcTIoN oFFICER To, 1 . The Principai Judrcial [,4agistrate of First Class at A-rn tor 2. The Judiclat f rst C{ass Migistrate at Armoor. 3. The Statior House Officer, Armoor police Station, Nizarn abad 4 Two CCs to the pubiic prosecutor, High Court for tne S ate oi felangana at 5 One CC to Sri. Ailuri Divakar Reddy, Advocate [OpUC. 6 Trrro CD C:pres Hyderabact.(OUT ) - -- Sa/DL AtL' ::_:_-.- -.= i:r l HE ,.ia iii[ ;';'r5 ix. 1c t..,. . : i I l I I l i) I i I I I l i HIGH COURT DATED:0311212025 ,i /. :t !a l!J \\ :-- ORDER CRLP.No.15932 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q 1) g \1, 1A