THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.87 of 2022

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.173 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (PDM) at Kamareddy, pertaining to Crime No.69 of 2019 of P.S. Bhiknoor, registered for the offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Heard Mr. Somavarapu Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on receipt of credible information, the de facto complainant, who is the Deputy Tahsildar and civil supply task force team conducted vehicle check of a lorry bearing No.RJ 11 GB 3173 at Jangampally RTO Check Post and found the accused in the crime transporting 235 quintals of PDS rice from Mahaboobnagar District to Maharashtra, without any proper documents to gain illegal profits. The said rice was seized under the cover of panchanama. Thereafter, the de facto complainant registered a case as per Clause 6-A of the Telangana State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (for short, ‘Control Order, 2016’).

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are the Driver and Owner of the lorry and the lorry was taken on hire basis. The seized rice which was being transported by the petitioners herein is supported by way bill, but the de facto complainant alleging the said rice as PDS rice has seized the same. Mere transportation of rice is not a contravention of any of the Control Order. He further submits that the petitioners herein have not purchased the PDS rice from any fair shop dealers or card holders. To prove the same, neither any fair shop dealers or card holders are examined nor any material was produced by the prosecution.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the rice is schedule commodity, but not an essential commodity. As per Clause 3 of the Control Order, 2016, dated 29.09.2016, any dealer may freely buy, stock, sell, transport, distribute, dispose, acquire, use or consume any quantity of rice and that no permit or license is required, as the rice and paddy are not essential commodities. When the seized rice is schedule commodity, the de facto complainant, who is the Deputy Tahsildar as well as the Civil Supplies Department has no power to seize, search and conduct panchanama of Schedule Commodities under the Act and the Collector has no power to issue notice under Section 6-A of the Act. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have involved in illegal transportation of PDS rice. It is further contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. Admittedly, the rice is a schedule commodity, but not an essential commodity. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are the Driver and Owner of the lorry. On a perusal of the record, it is apparent that the rice which was being transported is supported by a waybill, which reflects that accused No.3 in the crime has sold the seized rice to another rice miller. The lorry of petitioner-accused No.2, being driven by petitioner-accused No.1 was taken on hire basis to transport the seized rice. Merely providing a lorry on hired basis cannot make the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and