High Court · 2025

the affidavit filed in suppoJ grant stay of a, furth"r'p."u"oinJr'prorant 13-4-2016 of the zno responolrit'"Lrihrt tn" p"titi"."ii Gounsel for the petitioner : Ms.C.SUNIT ir*ilitflifl::l;ilt*iii*tl#Hi:.#f tlii#lfi Ftffii:,= t a THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.15376 0F 2016 ORDER: This V/rit Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia seeking the lbllowing relief: ". ..fo issue an appropiate writ, order or direction more paiicularly one in the natui oi wRtT oF ?ERTI,RARI Call for the records i,"irn,;ri ti rn No.tiz or 2016 dated 13-4-2016 or the 2d 'i"[o'iiirt against the Petitioners/Accused No 1 and by declaring the same is nutt and void and quash the same"' '"

2.HeardMs.C.sunithaKumarl,learnedcounselrepresenting Mr.V.H.V.R.R.Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner' Mr.R.Laxmil<anthReddy,learnedAssistantGovernmentPleaderfor Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Ms'Durga Priya' learned Assistant Government Pleader for civil supplies appearing for respondent No.3.

3.Learnedcounselforthepetitionersubmitsthat,challengingthe registration of FIR No. 122 of 2016 dated 13'04'2016 by the respondent No.2/Station House officer, Keesara Police Station, Cyberabad, the a petitioner, lvho is arrayed as Accused No 1, has filed the present writ petition seeking quashment of the proceedings.

4.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13'04'2016, upon receiving information regarding the illegal transportation of Public . Distribution System (PDS) rice in two auto-rickshaws bearing / EIB,,,;.*] -- .1 ) 2 registration Nos. TS08-UA-2143 and rs0g-uA-14gs, the complainant conducted a search and apprehended accused Nos. 2 to 5. During the inspection, approximately seven quintals of PDS rice were found in their possession. Upon further inquiry, it was revealed that the said accused had purchased the rice from ration card holders at a lower price of Rs. 6/- per kilogram at uppal and subsequenfly sold the sarne to the petitioner/Accused No.1, who is the proprietor of rhirumala Binni Rice Mill, cheekatimamidi Vilrage, at Rs. 10/- per kilogram. Based on these facts, the accused were alleged to have committed offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 of the lndian penat code, 1g60, and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 19S5. 4-2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that this Court has previously dealt with similar matters. A Division Bench, in its common judgment rendered in w.p. No. 7gl 1 of 2016, after considering analogous facts and the relevant legal provisions, was pleased to quash the proceedings.in comparable circumstances. The said judgment was subsequently relied upon in w.p. No. 6401 of 2016 and its batch, as well as in w.P. No. 33493 of 201s. Hence, it is submitted that the It present case stands on the same footing, and the petitioner prays that a similar order be passed, quashing the proceedings against him.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies fairly concede that in '..similar circumstances, this Hon'ble Court has, on previous occasiopr5,- I : / i : J considered similar factual situations and has been pleased to pass orders of quashment.

6. I have perused the materials on record.

7. The allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.1 is that he purchased Public Distribution System (pDS) rice from ration card. holders. The Division Bench of this court, in w.p. No. TB11 of 2016 and batch, having considered similar issues, factua! circumstances, and the statutory di,rective contained in Clause 17( ) of the Control order, 2oo8, passed an rlrder which reads as follows: "A careful reading of the above-reproduced Clause shows that it is attracted only vrhen a fair price shop dealer, cardholder, or any other person causes interrttption or interferes with the smooth distribution of scheduted commodities under the Public Distribution system or other Government schemes, at any level from the Food corporation of lndia (FCl) godown up to the fair price shop until the scheduled commodity reaches the intended beneficiary. From the unequivocat and plain language of this provision, it is eviderrt that the clause applies only where there is interruption in the movernent of food grains from the FCI godown till their detivery to the end beneficiary, i.e., the cardholder The provision does not encompass any ..iirity relating to commodities covered uniler the control order, 2008, once such commodities have reached the cardholder. There is no reference, either in the detention order or in the grounds of detention, to any act of the detenus interfering with the smootr functioning of distribution from the FCI godown to the intended benefi,:iaries. on the contrary, the entire altegation against the detenus is that they have been purchasing pDS rice from the cardhorders. Therefcre, such activity of the detenus falts entirely outside the ambit of clause 77(Al of the control order, 2009. once there exists no prohibition on such ar:tivity, either under the Essential commodities Act, 1995, or under the control order, zoda, which is undisputedly the governing instrument for the regulation and distribution of rice meant for the Public Distribution System, the dertenus cannot be accused of committing any offence. since the D t t \ respondents have failed to demonstrate that the detenus have contravened any provision of a Control Order framed under Section 3 of the 1995 Act' their alleged acts are not liable for any penal consequence' Consequently' as their activities do not constitute any offence under law' their preventive detention under the provisions of the Act of 1980 cannot be sustained"' N1

8. Having regard to the facts of the present case and the settled legal position mentioned above, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of prosecution proceedings against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, is unsustainable' Further' in the absence of any material indicating a dishonest or deceptive intention in procuring the PDS rice' so as to constitute the ingredients oi offences under Sections 406 or 42OofthelndianPenalCode,noprimafaciecaseismadeout. Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution cannot be maintained' ln view of the foregoing discussion' the writ petition is allowed' 9. Consequently, the proceedings in Crime No' 122 of 2016 dated 13.04.2016, registered against the petitioner' are hereby quashed' There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any' shall stand closed' //rRUE coPY// sD/-r'sREENlvAs BEqgI AsslsrAt'lr BEFISTRAR (9 a SECTION OFFICER to', Buildings HYderabad ' . ,n" Principal Secretary, Department of Home' Secretariat' Telangana state 2. The Station House Officer' Keesara P'S' Cyberabad' R'R' District' 3. The Assistant Civil Supply Officer' Tarnaka' Secunderabad' 4. One CC to SRI H'V'R'R'SWAMY' Advocate' IOPUCI 5 Two CCs to GP FOR HOME' High Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad' [OUTI - s. .i..."1.ii..:.j1.: 7 ti

6. Trn'o ccs to Gp FoR crvl suppltEs, High court for the State of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] /

7. Two CD Copies BSK SA NT I ] I \t. \ t It HIGH COURT DATED i1810912A25 t I ORDEIR WP.No.15376 of 2016 ,,!(t+' " .l }ii't (... o 2 t JAN 2026 L Gt \ \ x t ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I a ,r AI*