The court quashed proceedings against the Fair Price Shop dealer as he was not implicated in the alleged crime, and the charges did not establish offenses under the relevant laws.

ORDER :

K. SUJANA, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.44 of 2024 on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and Sections 17(e) of the Telangana State Public Distribution System (control) Order, 2016 (for short ‘the Act, 2016).

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 – Sub Inspector of Police, Secretariat Police Station, Hyderabad, lodged a complaint against the petitioner stating that when he along with his staff were performing vehicle checking near railway gate, MS. Maqtha, they found 26 bags of PDS rice and 6 bags of PDS wheat from the custody of Wazeed and Md. Isaq while transporting in goods trolly vehicle and when respondent No.2 enquired about the said goods, they informed that they have collected the same from the petitioner and they have to handover the said goods to Chand alias Syed Ashfaq. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.55 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC, Section 7 of the Act and Section 17(e) of the Act, 2016 and after completion of investigation, the Police filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.44 of 2024, before the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

3. Heard Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the Fair Price Shop dealer and that a perusal of the complaint, it appears that the petitioner was no way concerned with the alleged incident and he was not caught with the alleged stock, which was seized by respondent No.2. He further submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the subject crime basing on the proceedings issued against him under Section 6A of the Act. Therefore, the allegations leveled against him are vague and baseless and they do not constitute any offence as alleged by respondent No.2. Hence, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the Police seized 1600 kgs of PDS rice and wheat i.e., 26 bags of PDS rice and 6 bags of PDS wheat, which is meant for Public Distribution System. According to the driver and labour of the vehicle, in which the PDS rice and wheat was found, they purchased the said rice and wheat from the petitioner. Therefore, the allegations leveled against the petitioner, requires trial. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner was not caught along with the alleged stock seized by respondent No.2 but the petitioner sold the rice to the driver of the subject trolly, as such, a case in Crime No.55 of 2024 was registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC, Section 7 of the Act and Section 17(e) of the Act, 2016.

7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note Clause 17(e) of the Control Order, 2008, which reads as under:

“If any person is found to have purchased the rice supplied through PDS either from the card holder or the F.P. Shop dealer or any other source, he shall be liable for criminal action and imposition of penalty as may be