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.52 of 2023 of Shanthi Nagar Police Station, Jogulamba Gadwal District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 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, Jogulamba Gadwal District, lodged complaint before the Shanthi Nagar Police, Jogulamba Gadwal District against the petitioner, who is the Proprietor of Surya Traders (Rice Mill), Doudarpally village, Jogulamba Gadwal 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 2021-22 (Rabi season) for supply of rice to the Corporation. Later, the Custom Milling Paddy has been issued to the petitioner i.e., Surya Traders (Rice Mill), Doudarpally village, Jogulamba Gadwal District. Respondent No.2 has conducted inspection of the mill on 21.05.2023 and after completion of inspection, they noticed that approximately 1076.086 MTs of paddy worth about Rs.3,50,49,948/- for the 2021-22 (Rabi season) were misappropriated. Since the petitioner was not delivered the said paddy to the Corporation, the Police registered a case in Crime No.52 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 of the IPC. Hence, the present Criminal Petition.

3. Heard Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the agreement as well as the G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 19.06.2023 even after expiry of the due date, the Government has issued instructions to receive the CMR rice or paddy with certain penalties. However, respondent No.2 conducted physical inspection on 21.05.2023 i.e., before the extension time to deliver the paddy up to 31.05.2023, as such, there are no ingredients to constitute the offences under Sections 420 and

409 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., Surya Traders (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 where the accused has been “entrusted” with the property and Section 420 IPC deals with offences where the accused has “dishonestly induced” the vicitm/complainant to depart with the property in question. It was, therefore, argued that an accused cannot be charged under