Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 1539
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.
Uppalapati Murali and another – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and another – Respondent
Crl. P No.1928 of 2022
Decided On : 14-10-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Prathiwada Varun Kumar
For the Respondent: (Ms.) D. Prasanna Lakshmi (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
The court quashed proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. due to insufficient evidence of an offense, affirming lawful acquisition of PDS rice by the petitioners.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 420 - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Proceedings against petitioners for alleged diversion of PDS rice quashed due to lack of prima facie case - Petitioners purchased PDS rice in public auction, supporting their claims with valid documentation. (Paras 1-12)
(B) Inherent Powers of High Court - Jurisdiction under Section 482 can be exercised to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice - A court in this jurisdiction does not act as a trial court, but must ensure compelling reasons exist to justify quashing proceedings. (Paras 7-8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, accused of illegally diverting PDS rice, contended they purchased it through legal auction and were wrongfully implicated. Police seized rice and arrested them, leading to charges.
Findings of Court:
Court upheld that the allegations do not warrant continuation of proceedings; the petitioners demonstrated lawful acquisition of rice through auction.
Issues: Whether proceeding against petitioners can be quashed under Section 482 due to lack of evidence for calling an offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled no prima facie case was made against the petitioners, affirming their purchase of rice was lawful and thus the charges were without merit.
Result: Criminal petition allowed; proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing proceedings under cr.p.c. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the validity of the charges against petitioners. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. clarification on high court's inherent powers. (Para 6 , 7 , 12) |
| 4. specific case guidelines from bhajanlal's ruling. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. final judgment on quashing of charges. (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT /ORDER :
The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in CC No.5258 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.') and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act').
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows :
(a) On 18.07.2019, having received information. Respondent No.2 alongwith his staff and mediators proceeded to a godown at Chepalagudem, Nynavaram Village and found two persons, who were present near a lorry and on seeking the Police, they tried to skulk away. Police apprehended them and on questioning, they disclosed their identity as petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 herein.
(b) On enquiry, petitioner/accused No.1 confessed that he has been dealing with PDS rice and polishing the same in mills, selling the same as original, in a deceitful manner and earning more profits. While so, he purchased 31,675 Kgs. of PDS rice at Jaggaiahpet and stored in a godown and with a view to take the same to the rice mill, and were loading the rice bags petitioner/accused No.2 confessed that he has been assisting petitioner/accused No.1 in dealing with PDS rice.
(c) Police seized the rice bags and the Lorry Bearing No.AP 07 TJ 1525 under the cover of mediators report, arrested the petitioners and sent them for judicial remand. The Police registered the mediators report as a case in Crime No.362 of 2019 on the file of II Town Police Station, Vijayawada City. Subsequently, respondent No.2 sent a report to the Joint Collector informing about the seizure of PDS rice and lorry and arrest of the petitioners. The District Supplies Officer, after due inspection, handed over the PDS rice. After completion of investigation Police filed charge-sheet against the petitioners for the alleged offence, which was numbered as CC No.5258 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.
(d) Aggrieved by the registration of the said case, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against them.
Arguments Advanced at the Bar
3. Heard Sri Prathiwada Varun Kumar, learned Counsel for petitioners and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent Nos.1 and 2.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 would submit that petitioner/accused No.1 purchased the PDS rice in the public auction paid the requisite amount and stored the same in the godown. Learned Counsel would further submit that the petitioners did not commit any offence as alleged and they were falsely implicated in the present case. Learned Counsel would submit that the contents of the FIR or the charge-sheet do not reveal any prima facie offence made out against the petitioners. Therefore, continuation proceedings against the petitioners, is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against them.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioners in the commission of the offence and the same have to be proved during trial. At this stage, proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Point for Determination
6. Having heard the submissions of the learned Counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is :
W
