The High Court · 2025

2. Sri. K. Narsimha Reddy, ASI,, Elkathurthy P.S, District Hanumakonda Pincode 505476 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to quash the impugned proceedings in C.C.No. '1 '190 of 2023, on the file of the lV 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 C.C.No. 1190 of 2O23, on the file of the lV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Hanumakonda., including appearance and attendance of the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri GAJE RAGHU ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER lN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEr {NGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEI'I EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.l7919 ol 20itl DATE OF ORDER:- 31-12.2025 Between: Motam Veeraiah, S/o.Mahankali, Rl/o. Karimnagar District & another ... Petitioners/Accus rd Nos.1 & 2 AND The State of Telangana rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad & another. .. lespondents ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Se. ion 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 20ll , seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accut;, d Nos.1 & 2 in C.C.No.1 190 of 2023, on the file of the leamed V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Hanumakonda, r :gistered for the offence punishable under Section 42O of IPC anc Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. Heard Sri G.Raghu, learned couns,l for the petitionersi/accused Nos.1 & 2 as well as Sri " tender Rao "\ \ 2 €roJ C.l.P.No.179t9_202S Veeramalla, the learned Additional pubtb prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1- State.

3. The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 is that they procured pDS Rice from the surounding villagers at lowest price for sefling the same for profit and on 07.01.2023 at 15:30 hours, the petitioners were found in possession of 16 plastic bags of pDS rice weighing about g Quintals.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary alleging that the Rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent, charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenabre and improper. The allegations leveled against the petitioners cannot be sustained. Fu(her, this Court in Crl.p.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 33493 of 2015, while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alh4ed against the petitioners therein cannot be continued and quashed the proceedings. The petitioners herein are also entifled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 3 ElDJ Crl P- o.U919 2025

5. The leamed Additional Fublic Prosecutor h rs submitted that as per prosecution, the offences said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violatir> r of Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 195t and hence requested to pass appropriate orders.

6. Perused the material available on record.

7. Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Conrr rodities Act contemplate that any person contravenes with tl^r production, supply, distribution and trade of essential corr modities or abetment in this regard, is punishable. As per the pr: ;ecution, the petitioners herein had procured PDS rice from the teneficiaries after supply from the dealer.

8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No ',227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: I \ "There is no averment indicating that the petitioners i1 deceptively induced the beneficiaries to paft with th,) PDS rice or the beneficiary entusted the PDS rice purc them with the petitioners and they dishonestly misapg. or convefted to their own use or used it in violation o direction or contract. ln the absence of essential factor face of prosecution, this CourT finds it to be a fit case t, the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 202,) any way supplied |ased by opriated a lavvful ;, on the exercise Thus, t { \ \ 4 EIDJ Crl-P.ilo.119 1!)_m2S continuaneA of proceedings againsl the petitioners rs abuse of process of law-"

9. The facts and circumstances of the present case also are similar to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 529 of BNSS, 2023 by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 in C.C.No.1'190 of 2023, on the file of the learned lV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Hanumakonda, are hereby quashed.

11. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/- B,G.VYJAYANTHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The Additionar Judiciar First crass Magistrate at Hanamkonda, Hanamkonda District.

2. The SHO Elkathurthy, Hanamkonda District. 3. One CC to SRl. GAJE RAGHU Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT].

5. Two CD Copies PK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:31 11212025 CRLP.No.17919 of 2025 ORDER rl HE $IN f '( 0 3 FrB ?02t * i t il \\ra