2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 15075
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N. TUKARAMJI, J
Ayithagoni Sathaiah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5909 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.Venumadhav
For the Respondents: Jithender Rao Veeramalla
The absence of beneficiary complaints and lack of essential factors render the prosecution untenable, justifying quashment of proceedings.
Headnote:This petition seeks quashment of proceedings under s. 528 BNSS, 2023 regarding accused Nos. 3, 5 to 7 and 10 for offences under IPC s. 420, Essential Commodities Act s. 7 & 8, on grounds of lack of beneficiary complaints and improper allegations. The Court finds no direct inducement or misappropriation by petitioners. Thus, it exercises jurisdiction to quash proceedings as an abuse of process.
Result: proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashment of proceedings due to lack of essential allegations. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding prosecution's untenable nature. (Para 5) |
| 3. court's observations on the absence of essential elements in prosecution. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. final ruling to quash proceedings against petitioners. (Para 10) |
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS , 2023’) seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.44 of 2021 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bellampally, Mancherial District against the petitioners/accused Nos.3, 5 to 7 and 10.
2. Heard Mr.K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for petitioners- accused Nos. 3, 5 to 7 and 10, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 3, 5 to 7 and 10 in C.C.No.44 of 2021 for the offences under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 7 and 8 of Essential Commodities Act .
4. The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos. 3, 5 to 7 and 10 that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 23.09.2020 at about 14:30 hours, the petitioners were found in possession of 800 quintals of PDS rice in three lorries.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary, the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent, charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations on their face value cannot be sustained against the alleged offences. Further, this Court in Crl.P.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 33493 of 2015 while considering the selfsame situation categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioner therein cannot be continued and quashed the proceedings. The petitioners also entitled to same relief, hence prayed for quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
6. I have perused the materials on record.
7. As per the prosecution, this offence said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating, criminal breach of trust and violation of Section 7 and 8 of Essential Commodities Act .
8. Section 7 and 8 of Essential Commodities Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities or abatement in this regard is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer. The situation does not amount either intervening with the supply or distribution or trade of the PDS rice, as the material rice had reached the beneficiary.
9. That apart, there is no averment indicating that the petitioner in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or and beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by him with the petitioners and he dishonestly misappropriated or converted their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contract. In the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution this Court finds it fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS . Further, this Court in Crl.P.No.13758 of 2018 a Coordinate bench of this Court has considered identical case facts and drawn similar conclusions. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioners is found abuse of process.
10. For the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos. 3, 5 to 7 and 10 in C.C.No.44 of 2021 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bellampally, Mancherial District against the petitioners/accused Nos. 3, 5 to 7 and 10, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.