1. Quashing of FIR against fair price shop dealers for alleged misappropriation of PDS rice and offences under BNS and Essential Commodities Act. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 58821
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Juvvadi Sridevi, J
V. Narsimha – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.14645 of 2024
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, Somavarapu Satyanarayana
For the Respondents: M. Ramachandra Reddy
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, Somavarapu Satyanarayana
For the Respondents: M. Ramachandra Reddy
Proceedings under BNS and the Essential Commodities Act should be quashed if based solely on an inadmissible confession without independent evidence of misappropriation, proof of violation of a specific statutory Control Order, or evidence of a criminal conspiracy.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Misappropriation - Public Servant - Essential ingredients of Section 316(5) of BNS - To attract the offence, the prosecution must establish that property entrusted to a public servant was dishonestly misappropriated; in the absence of evidence showing diversion to the black market or analysis confirming the nature of seized goods, the charge cannot be sustained. (Para 7, 8)
(B) Essential Commodities Act - Section 7 - Contravention of Control Order - Proof of violation of a Control Order issued under Section 3 of the Act is a sine qua non for invoking penal provisions; mere status as a Fair Price Shop Dealer without proof of specific statutory contravention is insufficient. (Para 9)
(C) Criminal Conspiracy - Section 61(2) of BNS - Dependency on principal offence - In the absence of proof of a principal offence or evidence of a meeting of minds to commit an illegal act, a charge of conspiracy cannot be sustained independently. (Para 10)
Issues: Whether the proceedings against the Fair Price Shop Dealers should be quashed in the absence of material evidence beyond a co-accused's confession.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners claimed false implication based on inadmissible confession; prosecution argued allegations require full investigation and trial. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Confession of co-accused inadmissible; no evidence of misappropriation or that seized rice was PDS rice; variations within permissible limits. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Essential ingredients of Section 316(5) BNS require proof of dishonest misappropriation; Section 7 EC Act requires contravention of Control Order. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
5. Criminal petition allowed; proceedings against petitioners in FIR quashed. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. Is a confession made by a co-accused before the police admissible as evidence to implicate other accused?
No, such a confession is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be the sole basis to array accused. (Para 6 )
7. What are the essential ingredients for an offence under Section 316(5) of BNS (criminal breach of trust by public servant) regarding PDS rice?
The prosecution must prove entrustment of property, dishonest misappropriation, and evidence such as complaints from beneficiaries or analysis of rice. (Para 7 , 8 )
8. What is required to establish an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act?
The prosecution must specify and prove a contravention of a statutory Control Order issued under Section 3 of the Act. (Para 9 )
9. Can a charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 61(2) BNS be sustained without proof of the principal offence?
No, if the principal offence is not made out, the charge of criminal conspiracy cannot stand independently. (Para 10 )
10. When can proceedings be quashed as an abuse of process of law?
When the allegations are based solely on inadmissible evidence and no material supports the essential ingredients of the offences. (Para 11 )
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.14645 of 2024
23 DECEMBER, 2025
Between:
V.Narsimha and another … Petitioners
AND
The State of Telangana
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor and another …Respondents
: O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), by the
petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings
against them in F.I.R.No.805 of 2024 of P.S. Madhura Nagar,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2) and
316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 7(1) of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short the ‘Act’).
2. Heard Mr. P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel
representing Mr. Somavarapu Satyanarayana, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2-State and
perused the record.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that they are Fair
Price Shop Dealers and they have unlawfully diverted and sold PDS
2
rice to accused No.1, who in turn sold the said rice to accused No.5,
thereby facilitating illegal trade in essential commodities, which are
meant for public distribution.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
are Fair Price Shop Dealers and are innocent of the offences alleged
against them. They have been falsely implicated in the present case
solely on the basis of confession of accused No.1. Nothing was
recovered from the possession of the petitioners. There is no
material to establish that accused No.1 had purchased PDS rice
from the petitioners. Further, no samples of rice or wheat were lifted
for analysis to ascertain as to whether the seized commodity was
PDS rice or not. In the absence of any cogent evidence,
continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of
process of the Court, and therefore, learned counsel prayed to
quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
opposed the petition stating that specific allegations are levelled
against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise of the allegations
levelled against the petitioners can only be known after conducting
full-fledged investigation and trial. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the
petition.
3
6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing on both sides and upon perusal of the material available
on record, it is evident that the petitioners are Fair Price Shop
Dealers. They were arrayed as accused in the crime solely on the
basis of confession statement of accused No.1 made before the
Police which is inadmissible in evidence.
7. To attract an offence under Section 316(5) of BNS (previously
Section 409 of IPC), the prosecution must establish that the
accused, acting in the capacity of a public servant, was entrusted
with the property and pursuant to such entrustment, the property
was dishonestly misappropriated or converted for personal use.
8. Even assuming that PDS rice was entrusted to the petitioners
in the capacity of public servants, for distribution to the beneficiaries,
there is absolutely no material to establish that the said rice was
diverted to the black market without distributing to the beneficiaries
and thereby the beneficiaries have made a complaint that they were
denied the benefit of getting the PDS rice. Significantly, no analysis
was conducted to establish that the rice seized from accused No.1
was PDS rice. Further, the Inspection Reports reveals that the
variations found were within the permissible limits, thereby negating
the allegation of misappropriation. These vital aspects were neither
4
disputed nor controverted by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor. In the absence of any evidence proving dishonest
misappropriation of entrusted property by the petitioners, or even
confirming that the seized rice was PDS rice, the essential
ingredients of the offence under Section 316(5) of BNS (previously
Section 409 of IPC) are not made out.
9. W
