The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh P- Raja Sekhar, Sub lnspector of Police, P S Bhongir Rural Yadadri Bhongir District ...Respondent / State I R-2 impleaded as per Court Order dated 05-01-2024 in l.A.No.1 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.'1 3758 of 2018 | Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the clrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to C,C.No.1184 of 2017 on the file of Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhongir and quash the proceedings in CC.No.1184 oI 2017. l.A. NO: 1OF 20'18 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners in C.C.No.1184 ol 2017 on the file of court of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhongir, pending the disposal of the Crl. Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri A prabhakar Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and sri M Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant pubric Prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No. 1 and of sri_Advocate for the Respondent No. The Court made the following Order : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.13758 of 2OL8 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner/A-S to quash the proceedings 1n C.C.No. 1184 of 2Ol7 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections l2O-8, 42O, 471 of IPC and Section 7 of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A-5, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2lde-facto complainant. Perused the record.

3. The case of the informant/L.W. 1/complainant who is the Sub-Inspector of Police/2"d respondent is that on O8.O4.2OL7 having received information that PDS rice was illegally transported, he along with other Police personnel shown as witnesses L.Ws.2 to 4 stopped the 1orry bearing No.TS_O6_UA_8622 coming from Warangal. On questioning the lorrl, Diver/A_l, he has given vague replies for which reason, the lorq, was checked and 440 bags of pDS rice were found, weighing 5o kgs. each. A_1 produced invoices stating that stock had to be unloaded at a given point. A_2 was piloting the vehicle who was also apprehended. The lorrJr along with accused Nos.I and 2were handed over to the Investigating Office r/L.W.9. During the course of investigation, on the basis of confession of A_l and A_2, it was revea_led that A_3 to A_5 who were partners in business, were purchasing p_DS rice from petty business people and also pDS shops. The said rice was collected and sent to Hyderabad for the purpose of selling it at higher price. Accordingly, the Investigating Oflicer found the involvement of A_1 to A_9 and filed charge sheet against all of them for tl:e offences under Sections l2O_8, 42O, 4Zl of IpC and Section Z of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that apart from the aleged confession of A_l and I I t \ l A-2, there is absolutely no other evidence which was collected during the course of investigation to draw any inference of the involvement of petitioner/A-5.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant public Prosecutor would submit that petitioner was involved in 5 other similar cases and all 5 cases were registered for the offence under Section 42O of IpC and also under Sections 7 and 8 of The Essential Commodities Act.

6. Having gone through the record, 4O0 bags of rice were seized, which was identified as pDS rice by L.W.5 who is Deputy Tahsildar. However, the allegation against the petitioner is that he had purchased pDS rice from various business men and after procuring the rice, it was being transported in the lorry of A-9 to Hyderabad with the help of A-1 and A-2. Admittedly, not a single witness was examined t'o speak about any kind of pDS rice procurement by A-5. In the absence of any such evidence and only on the basis of confession of A_1 and, A_2, criminal proceedings cannot go on against the petitioner. \ \ I I I I The offence of cheating under Section 42O,of IPC can only be made out if there is any fraudulent inducement on the basis of misrepresentation. Further, Section 471 of IPC would be attracted if fabricated documents are used as original. There is no allegation against A-5 regarding inducement of any person in any manner whatsoever or that fa-lse document has been used for the purpose of cheating. None of the ingredients of criminal proceedings are made out against A-5, AS such, the proceedings in C.C.No.1184 of 2OL7 are quashed against A-5, since the basis for arraying the petitioner is the confession of A-1 & A-2 and no reliable evidence is placed to connect the petitioner with the rice found in the lorryr driven by A-1.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /1 //TRUE COPY// \- TION OFFICER ,l.j S To, The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhongir The Station House Officer, Bhongir Rural PS, Yadadri Bhongir District Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri A Prabhakar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 1 2 4 Two CD CoPies @; vA/s! I HIGH COURT DATED:29 t01t2025 ORDER CRLP.No.137SB of 2018 1tl€ SI4 ( () 04 FIS 2025 L,, j .n.{ Jr (: T ALLOWING THE CRLP o{