The High Court · 2025

2. Maratha Srinivas, S/o Rajaram, Age. 52 years, Occ: Dv. Tashildar (CS) , i"il"din'j Yergatla, R/o. Jakranpauy Vilage ani uano5t, ruiamOio -Oi.tr"t State. Petition under section 52g of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminil Fetition, the High d;ri;;y p9 qfgasga to quash the proceedings in cc No. 167 of 2o2s on ine tiie ottn6 Hon'ble Principal Judicial Magistrate of First class at Armoor in so far as petitioners/Accused No. 1 and 2. ...RESPONDENTS OF Petition under section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminil petition, the High drrt ;;t be pleased grant stay of all further proceedings against the petitio-ners/Accused No. 1 and 2 in cc No. 167 of 2o2s on the firJ of ]tre tton,bte principar .luoicLr Magistrate of First class at Armoor pending disposal of the main criminal petiiion. -to This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for Respondent no.2 . The Court made the following: ORDER I I I i l i I IN THE HIGH COUR FOR THE STATE OF TE AT HYDERABAD GANA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO AL PETITI ON No.16429 of2025 Date: I 0.12.2025 Between: Avej Ali 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.167 of 2025, on the file of the principal Judicial Magistrate of First class at Armoor, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.l and 2, for the offence punishable under section 7 of the Essential commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act'). 2- Heard Mr.A.Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l. \ \ \ \ 2

3. The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2 is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same forprofit and on 01.02.2025 at about 12lJ0 hours, the petitioners were found in possession of l9 bags of PDS rice totalling 10.80 quintals.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper. 'fhe allegations, even taken at their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Court, in Crl.P.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 3349 of 2015, while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein could not be continued-and accordingly 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 Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the offences said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the EC Act and requested to pass appropriate orders 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 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: l ) "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. In the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this Court finds it to be afit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance ofproceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law". t I

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.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.167 of 2025, on the file of the Principal \ \ -:1 4 Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, against the petitionerVaccused Nos. I and 2, are hereby quashed. Pendinll miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. sD/- ASSt K.BHAVANI SWAMY STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ CTION OFFICER To I I

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Armoor. 2. The Station Officer, Balkonda Police Station, Nizamabad District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana, at 4. One CC to SRl. Alluri Divakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] I Pr/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 10t12t2025 * I i;tli LL 1i ,# T E /$, s\ \ &nrH * ORDER CRLP.N 0.16429 of 2O2S ALLOWING THE CRL.PETITION \a t