The High Court · 2025

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

2. Sri. B. Ravinder, Sub-lnspector, K.U.C P.S, District Hanumakonda. Pincode' 506371 ...RES''NDENTS/..MPLA.NANT 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 impugned proceedings in C.C.No. 855 of 2025, on the file of the lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Hanumakonda l.A. NO: 2OF 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 interim STAY of all further proceedings in proceedings in c.c. No. 855 of 2025, on the file of the lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class at Hanumakonda, including appearance and attendance of the petitioners / Accused Nos. 1 to 3, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition' This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing 1l : It/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argu r ents of Sri GAJ E RAGHU ,Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithende r Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENfVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.L726O of 2o25 Date:19.12.2025 Between: Motam Veeraiah and others 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 Iiled seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.855 of 2025, on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Hanumakonda, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023, and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 2 JSR, J Crlp-17260 2O25 2. Heard Sri G.Raghu, learned cou :rsel for the petitioners and Mr.V.Jithendar Rao, lea-l': red Additional hrblic Prosecutor for respondent No. 1

3. The specific allegation ir lainst petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 is that thel' have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaperate to sell the same for profit and on 03.09.2024 at abov . 17.3O hours, the petitioners were found in possession < f 465 bags of PDS rice totalling 26.650 kgs.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners wci ld submit that without there being any complaint from ,t ry benehciary, alieging that the rice was procured decepl vely or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioners br prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations even taken at their face value cannot be sustained against .he petitioners. Further, this Court, in Crl.p.Nos.SZO9 of 2C 9 ard 3349 of 2015, while considering the same situaticr observed t[at the offences alteged against .\\i , categorically .he petitioners therein could not be continued and accorc iqgly quashed I I i l 3 JSR, J Crlp_17260 2025 the proceedings. The petitioners are a_lso entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. The learned Additiona-l 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 the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities in this regard is punishable. As.per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured pDS rice from the benehciaries after supply from the dealer.

7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.p.No-7227 of 2O25 has considered the identical facts and observed that: 'There b no auement indicating that tLLe petitioner in ong wag deceptiuelg induced the beneficiaries to part uLith the supptied PDS rice or the beneftciary entrusted the PDS rice purchased bg them with the petitbner and theg dishonestlg mi.sappropiated, or conuerted to their oun use or used it in uiolation of a lau_tfut direction or contract. In the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution, thi-s Court finds it to be a rtt cose to exerci.se the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, 4 JSR, J CrIp _l'7260,2025 continuance of proceedings against the petitioner process of lau". ; abuse of B. The facts ald circumstances of the pll sent case a-lso similar to those in the above case and her ce, this Court finds it to be a ht case to exercise jurisdictior under Section 528 of BNSS by applying the same analogy arrd to quash the proceedings against the petitioners hereir .

9. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is zl owed and the proceedings in C.C.No.855 of 2025, on he file of III Additional Judicia_l Magistrate of Fir.r t Class at Hanumakonda, against the petitioners/accu: ed Nos. 1 to 3, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaleous applications, :f any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// : . L. VIJAYA LAXMI { TANT REGISTRAR 1)ECTION OFFICER ,.\ q $ )' To, 1 The lllAdditional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at _ tnumakonda 2 The SHO. pS K.U C , Diskict"HinamionOJ.O-isiriit-' 3 one CC to SRT GAJE RAGHU Adv;;;i; rd-uCi'"' 4 rwo ccs to puBltc pnoSecuioC-toUl--, 5. Two CD Cooies GE\Psl k (( B {HE S IA :1 o() t t I I I JAll 2026 . ).r, - n--,,- ,. . ,<1, .'.1 .2 ' ' : ., -,---., -!.,.,--_,.i>-' HIGH COURT DATEDi19l1212025 ORDER CRLP.No.17260 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE CRLP WITHOUT COSTS q P,o,"