THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.15376 OF 2016

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI Call for the records pertaining to FIR No.122 of 2016 dated 13-4-2016 of the 2^nd respondent against the Petitioners/Accused No.1 and by declaring the same is null and void and quash the same.….”

2. Heard Ms.C.Sunitha Kumari, learned counsel representing Mr.V.H.V.R.R.Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Ms.Durga Priya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondent No.3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that challenging the registration of FIR No.122 of 2016 dated 13.04.2016 by the respondent No.2/Station House Officer, Keesara Police Station, Cyberabad, the petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.1, has filed this present writ petition seeking quashment of proceedings.

4.1. The prosecution case in brief is that on 13.04.2016, upon the receiving information regarding the illegal transportation of Public Distribution System (PDS) Rice, in two auto-rickshaws bearing registration Nos.TS08-UA-2743 and TS08-UA-1485, the complainant conducted a search and apprehended accused Nos.2 to 5. During the inspection, approximately seven quintals of PDS rice were found in their possession. Upon further inquiry, it was revealed that the said accused had purchased the rice from ration card holders at a lower price of Rs.6/- per kilogram at Uppal and subsequently sold the same to the petitioner/accused No.1, who is the proprietor of Thirumala Binni Rice Mill, Cheekatimamidi Village, at Rs.10/- per kilogram. Based on these facts, the accused alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities, Act, 1955.

4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that this Court has previously dealt with similar matters. A Division Bench, in its common judgment rendered in W.P.No.7811 of 2016, after considering analogous facts and the relevant legal provisions, was pleased to quash the proceedings in comparable circumstances. The said judgment was subsequently relied upon in W.P. No. 6401 of 2016 and its batch, as well as in W.P. No. 33493 of 2015. Hence, it is submitted that the present case stands on the same footing, and the petitioner prays that a similar order be passed, quashing the proceedings against him.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies fairly concede that in similar circumstances, this Hon’ble Court has, on previous occasions, considered similar factual situations and has been pleased to pass orders of quashment.

6. I have perused the materials on record.

7. The allegation against the petitioner/accused No.1 is that he purchased Public Distribution System (PDS) rice from ration card holders. The Division Bench of this Court, in W.P. No. 7811 of 2016 and batch, having considered similar issues, factual circumstances, and the statutory directive contained in Clause 17(A) of the Control Order, 2008, passed an order which reads as follows:

“A careful reading of the above-reproduced Clause shows that it is attracted only when a fair price shop dealer, cardholder, or any person causes interruption or interferes with the smooth distribution of scheduled commodities under the Public Distribution System or other Government schemes, at any level from the Food Corporation of India (FCI) godown up to the fair price shop until the scheduled commodity reaches the intended beneficiary. From the unequivocal plain language of this provision, it is evident that the clause applies only where there is interruption in the movement of food grains from the FC