Proceedings under Section 420 IPC and Section 7 of the EC Act for procuring PDS rice are liable to be quashed if there is no evidence of deceptive inducement of beneficiaries.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.927 of 2022, on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Mancherial, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2, for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘EC’ Act).

2. Heard Mr. P. Mahipal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

3. The specific allegation against the petitioner/accused No.2 is that he has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for wrongful gain and that on 22.09.2022, at about 10:15 AM, the petitioner was found in possession of 22 bags of PDS rice containing 8.8 quintals.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioner for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations, even taken at his face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Court, in Crl.P.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 3349 of 2015, while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein could not be continued and accordingly quashed the proceedings. The petitioner is also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the offences said to have been committed by the petitioner is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the EC Act and requested to pass appropriate orders.

6. Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer.

7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that:

“There is no averment indicating that the petitioner in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to 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 to be a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 . Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law”.

8. The facts and circumstances of the present case also similar to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.927 of 2022, on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Mancherial, against the petitioner/accused No.2, are hereby quashed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.