The High Court · 2025

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

2. R Ravi kumar, Dy. Tahsildar (CS),, R/O. Sirikonda, Nizamabad District, Telangana ...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 proceedings in CC No. 459 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor in so far as petitioners/Accused No.1 and 3 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Ccurt may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 2 OF 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 petitionersiAccused No. 1 & 3 in CC No. 459 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor pending disposal of the main criminal petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice Thrs 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 Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JT'STICE J.SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.16966 of 2O2S Date:, L7.L2.2O25 Between: Mohd. Abdul Rehman and another AND ...Petitioners The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, At Hyderabad and another ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash tJre proceedings in C.C.No.459 of 2023, on the frle of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Arrnoor, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 3, for the offence punishable under Section 42O of Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short EC ActJ. 2 JSR, J Crlp_16966_2025

2. Heard Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners ald Mr.V.Jithendar Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1.

3. The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 3 is that they have procured PDS rice from the benehciaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on

16.06.2023 at about 07.00 hours, the petitioners were found in possession of 18 bags of PDS rice totalling 09.10 quintals.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiar5r, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations, even taken at their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Court, in Crl.P.Nos.5709 of 2Ol9 and 3349 of 2O15, 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 entifled to the same 3 JS& J Crlp_16966 2025 relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the offence 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.

6. Section 7 of tJ:e EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities in this regard is punishable. As per tJre prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply lrom the dealer.

7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical lacts and observed that: "There is no auennent indicating that the petitioner in any uay deceptiuelg induced the beneficiaries to part utith th.e supplied PDS ice or th.e beneftciary entrusted the PDS rice purchased bg them with tlLe petitioner and theg dbhonestly misappropriated or anuerted to ttleir ou)n use or used it in uiolation of a lauful direction or contract. In the absence of essential factors, on tlle face of proseantion, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section S2B ofBNSS, 2023. Thus, continuonce of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law,. 4 JS& J Crlp-l6966]O2s 8. The facts arrd circumstances of the present case also similar to those in the above case and hence, this Court Iinds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by applying the same analory and to quash tJre proceedings against the petitioners herein.

9. Accordingly, the Crimina-l Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.459 of 2023, on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 3, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. To, SD/.M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER '1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor 2 The station House officer. Forice Station. sri""a", ruirr.abad District 3. Two CCs to the pUBLtC PROSECUTOR H,gh C"rrt'to, the State of . Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT) 4. One CC to SRt ALLURT DTVAKAR REDDY Advocate {OpUCl 5. Two CD Copies TPK/PSL W HIGH COURT DATED: 1711212025 i* l.- 2 | JAr{ 2020 I -t 5i'I ('__'r t- ORDER CRLP.No.1 6966 ot 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED >1" I