ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in FIR No.108 of 2024 of Wanaparthy Rural Police Station, Wanaparthy. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 420, 406, 409 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C.) and under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short ‘E.C.Act’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (for short ‘TGSCSCL’) during the Rabi season 2022-23 delivered 14,998.690 Metric Tons of paddy to M/s. Mahalaxmi Agro Industries Ltd. under an agreement and petitioner has to deliver 10,199 Metric Tons of rice to Food Corporation of India (FCI), but M/s.Mahalaxmi Agro Industries Ltd., delivered only 924.232 Metric Tons of boiled rice to FCI and failed to deliver the balance 9274.232 Metric Tons of rice. As such, complaint was filed against the petitioner.

3. Heard Sri Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Palle Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is not an agreement holder with TGSCSCL. It is the father of petitioner who entered into agreement with the TGSCSCL, during his life time. The father of petitioner expired on 29.08.2023 and there cannot be vicarious liability under criminal jurisprudence. It is contended that petitioner was in U.S.A, pursuing his job and only after the sudden death of his father, he came to India, whereas foisting the present criminal case is sheer abuse of process of law. It is further contended that for the Rabi season 2022-23 since the paddy allotted to the rice millers throughout the State was unfit for milling, the respondent-Government has taken a policy decision to auction the paddy of 12208.61 Metric Tons and when the same was given to M/s.Mahalaxmi Agro Industries Ltd., by the Government itself, the question of misappropriation of paddy would not arise and no offence can be attributed as alleged. The respondents without verifying the record falsely filed the case to wreck vengeance with a malafide intention to harass the petitioner. It is also contended that the father of petitioner was the proprietor of M/s.Mahalaxmi Agro Industries Ltd., and petitioner is no way concerned with the said business.

5. Learned counsel further contended that the father of petitioner executed agreement with the TGSCSCL and after execution of the said agreement, he died in the year 2023 and there is no agreement between the petitioner and TGSCSCL. As such, the offence under Section 409 of I.P.C, is not attracted to the petitioner. He further submitted that the Government issued tender notification for auction of paddy for Rabi season 2022-23 for the entire season as it is unfit for milling purpose, and in the said tender notification, when paddy was allotted to the petitioner’s rice mill i.e., 12208.61 Metric tons, the question of petitioner not delivering 10,199 Metric Tons does not arise. As such, requested the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

6. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that huge amounts are involved in this case. Even though agreement was made with the father of petitioner, petitioner is looking after the day-to-day affairs of the rice mills and at the time of conducting panchanama petitioner is available in the rice mill and he signed on the panchanama. There is a difference of 9274.232 Metric Tons of custom Milled rice and the actual cost of default rice is Rs. 229,477,010.88 and penalty of 25% was imposed on the balance Rs.57,369,252.72 including 12% interest which amounts to Rs.31,66,78,275 which is a huge amount of public money involved in this case. As the petitioner is taking care of the day- to-day affairs of M/s.Mahalaxmi Agro Industries Ltd., it cannot be said that he is no way concerned with the rice mill. Hence, pr