The High Court · 2025

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

2. G. Vinod, S/o. Ramulu, Age 51 years, Occ. Dy. Tahasildar (CS), Rl/o. Mubharak Nagar, Nizamabad Town And District, Telangana State. ..,RESPONDENTS 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. 589 ot 2025 on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor in so far as petitioners/Accused No.1 to 8. 72 ffierSection528,ofBNSSpra.yI1gthatinthecircumstances stated in the r,rr"rlirnJum of erouno, of crimin"l-pe"tition, the High court may be oleased to grant stay of all furthei proceeding.s against the petitioners/Accused i.,ro.1 to 8 in cc r.ro. 6a9 0f 2025", ir'L-tirl of-the principar Judiciar Magistrate of First class at Armoor pending disposal of the main criminal petition' This Petition coming on for hearing, upon .perusing "nO the Merhorandum of uion 1L*i"S tn" a,g'ments of Sri ALLURI Grounds of Crinrinrr p"titLn DIVAKAR REDDY, Advocate for in" Petitioner and Sri V' Jithender Rao Addititional Pubtic Prosecutor on oenart of the Respondent No'1 and none "pp""t"O The Gourt made the following: ORDER for the ResPondent No'2' - , I lr:gll:: - :: ::l i-'-l \ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ATHYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.16414 of 2025 Date:10.12.2025 Between: Shaik Zakeer and 7 others. AND ...Petitioners The State ofTelangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State ofTelangana and another ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.589 of 2025, on the file of leamed Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, wherein the petitioners lvere arrayed as accused Nos.l to 8, for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act').

2. Heard Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.V.Jithendar Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l. 2 3' rhe specific aregation against the petitioner/accused is that he has procured pDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to se, the: same for profit and on 13.12.2024 at about 16:00 hours, the petitio.er was found in possession of 330 prastic bags of pDS rice weighi,g approximatery 2r0.slquintars.

4. L,earned counser for the petitioner wourd submit that without there being any compraint from any bene frciary,areging that the rice wes procured deceptivery or with a criminar intent and charging the petitioner for prosecution is untenabre and improper. The aregations, even taken at his face varue cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this court, in crr.p.Nos.570g of 20rg anc 334g of 2015, whire considering the same situation, categoricary observed that the offences areged against the petitioners therein courd not be continued and accordingry quashed the proceedings' The petitioner is arso entitred to the same rerief and henq: prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 5' Ther learned Additionar pubric prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the offences said to have been committed by the petitioner is cheating and vioration of section 7 of theEc Act and requested to pass appropriate orders. -----....:!ia 1\ t l 3

6. Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has 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: "There is no averment indicating that the petitioner in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied PDS rie'o.r the beneficiary entntsted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitibner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contract. In the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this Courtfinds it to be afit 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 procgedings against the petitioner herein.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.589 of 2025, on the file of learned 4 Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, against the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 8, are hereby quashed. Pe,nding miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. To, Sd/- U. SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G:, SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPYII 1 The Prin,:ipal Judicial First class Magistrate at Armoor. 2. The Stat"on House Officer, Armoor police Station, Nizamabad District 3. one cc to sRt ALLURT DIVAKAR REDDY, Advocate topucl 4. Two ccs; to SRI PUBLtc pRosEcuroR, High court 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad.[OUTJ -Buidings, ABK/BA * =I / I a HIGH COURT DATED i1011212025 :)TA S oE ttg 2026 * 6) .Jl -4 14 ORDER GRLP.No.'16414 ol 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED. JKS [,)q E1) G