The High Court · 2025

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

2. Ginguri Vinod, S/o. Ramulu, Age 49 years, Occ.Dy.-Tashildar (Enf) Balkonda, R/o. Mubarak nagar Nizamabad Town and District, Telangana State. ...RESPONDENT/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 proceedings in CC No. 428 of 2022 on the file of the Honble Principal Judicial First: class Magistrate at Armoor in so far as petitioners/Accused No.land 2 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. t.A. NO: F 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 stay of all further proceedings against the petitioners/Accused No.1.and 2 in CC No. 428 of 2022 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Judicial First class Magistrate at Armoor pending disposal of the main criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the fVemorandum of Grounds of Crinrinal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri ALLURI DIVAKAR REDt)Y, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla the l\dditional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none a;;peared forthe Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER i) IN THE HIGH COTIRT FOR THE STATE OF TET,ANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SRBENIVAS RAO I 10 of Date:03.12.2025 Between: Mohammad Imran and another AND petitioners The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and another .respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.428 of 2022, onthe file of leamed Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Armoor, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2, for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. Heard Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.V.Jithendar Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l.

3. The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.l r\-r and 2 is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at 2 cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 21.10.2022 at about 01:30 AM, the petitioners were found in possession of 28 bags of PDS rice totalling 24 quintals

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that u,ithout there being any complaint from an), beneficiary, alleging that the rice rvas procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and r:harging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improp,3r. 'fhe allegations, even taken at thcir face value cannot be suistained against the petitioners. Further, this Court in Crl.P.No.5709 of 2019 and 3349 of 2015 while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein cannot be continued and quashed the proceedings. T'he petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per prosecuticn, the offence said to have been committed by the petitioners is c:heating and violation of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and requested to pass appropriate orders. 3

6. Section 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act contemplate that any person contravenes 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.

7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7227 of \ 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: t / aa-1"There is no averment indicating that the petitioner in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contract. ln the absence ofessential factors, on the face of prosecution, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law".

8. The 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. -G-a' 4

9. ,A.cc'ordingly, the Criminal Petition is allorved and the proceedings in C.C.No.428 of 2022, on the file of the learned Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Armoor, against the petitioners,/acoused Nos.l and2, are hereby quashed. Pend.ing miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed \ SD/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAi //TRUE COPY/ $ecnorv oFFrcER To,

5. Pk/Sa The Principal 'Judiciat First class Magistrate at Armoor, Nizamabad District. The sHo Barkonda porice station, Nizamabad District. ONE CC tO SRI. ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY AdVOCAIC TOPUC] Two copies to pUBLrc pRosECUToR, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad tOUt-- Two CD Copies ?t, HIGH COURT DATED:03/1 212025 F / CRLP.No.15910 of 2025 Cr 0 0 0t[ ?0?5 7- :k * CRIMINAL PEITITION IS ALLOWED. (+- g \1., {