ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused, in Crime No.67 of 2024 of Narsapur Police Station, Medak District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’).

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant, who is the District Manager of the Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Medak District, lodged complaint before the Police, Narsapur Police Station, Medak District against the petitioner, who is the Managing Partner of Sri Mahalakshmi Binny Rice Mill, Narsapur, Medak District, stating that the petitioner has entered into written agreement with Telangana Civil Supplies Corporation wherein it is stated that the Corporation supplies its own stocks of paddy to the petitioner and he shall supply the rice back to the Corporation for the purpose of Public Distribution System. It is stated that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Civil Supplies Corporation in the year 2022-2023 (Rabi season) and 2023-24 (Kharif season) for supply of rice to the Corporation. Later, the Custom Milling Paddy has been issued to the petitioner i.e., Sri Mahalakshmi Binny Rice Mill, Narsapur, Medak District. Respondent No.2 has conducted inspection of the mill on 01.03.2024 and after completion of inspection, they noticed that approximately 7310.912 MTs of paddy worth about Rs.24.60 crores for the 2022-23 (Rabi season) and 2023-24 (Kharif season) were misappropriated. Since the petitioner was not delivered the said paddy to the Corporation, the Police registered a case in Crime No.67 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 409 of the IPC. Hence, the present Criminal Petition.

3. Heard Sri Narendar Jalli, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Palle NageshwarRao, learned Public Prosecutor for respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that mill capacity is only 4 tonnes i.e., 6000 MTs of paddy. As the paddy harvest was not properly assessed by the Department, the Government has sent excess paddy to the mill i.e., 7259.160 MTs. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the agreement as well as the G.O.Ms.No.9, dated 10.10.2020 the Government has to take care of godowns and storage places of paddy. However, without properly assessing the place the Government has sent excess paddy to the Mill and the same was damaged and got sprouts by exposing to the rain and the sun, as such, the petitioner was unable to supply the same and there are no ingredients to constitute the offences under Sections 420, 409 and 406 of IPC.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Section 409 is not applicable in the case of petitioner as there is no entrustment of liability and there exists only a contractual liability on his part as there is a contract between the Civil Supplies Department and the firm i.e., Sri Mahalakshmi Binny Rice Mill, under which the Department has to provide paddy to the rice mill and they in turn, would supply the rice. Thereby, there is no way that Section 409 attracts in the case of petitioner.

6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Raghavender vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI 1, wherein, no opinion was expressed with regard to Sections 409 and 420 of IPC though it was argued that Sections 409 and 420 of IPC cannot go together. The paragraph No.78 of the said judgment reads as under:

“78. We may at this stage, briefly note that the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant had raised another contention, namely, that the charges under Section 409 and section 420 of IPC cannot go together. He eloquently argued that the essential ingredients of the two offences are conflicting in nature. Section 409 (or 405) IPC deals with offfences whe