CRLP/12086/2015 of Ch.Srinivasa Rao Regional Manager M/s. Insecticide (India) L Vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA.,REP.,PP AND ANOTHER on 29 December 2023

'Jlit .4,il ,':; ".S'-'.h':".S'-'.h':-'.h':

il IN THE HIGH [COURT FOR ][THE ][STATE OF ][TELANGANA],':; ".S'-'.h':".S'-'.h':-'.h':AT HYDERABADFRIDAY, THE TWENTY [NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER]TWO THOI.,ISAND [AND TWENTY THREE]PRESENT-t,#i:' (Si,i[oi]THE HONOURABLE [SRI ][JUSTICE ][E.V' ][VENUGOPAL]rMtN:120oF 20Between:1. Ch.Srinivasa [Rao ][Regional Manager ]rys ll:eclr^cid^e [(lndia) ][L' ][Regional]rk:iitanaoer. M/s. lnsecticideJir":iiiitio., [Ftat ][t'to' ][tooaln ][totn floor' ][Paigah]i,+.PlazalB6sheerbagh' [Hyderabad (Manufacturer)]$.18rt,fjffi:'2. Sri Narsini [Dathathreyulu, ][Door ][No"16-2161'1,2 ][aod ][8lo ][14 NDT ][Complex']':,' iliri" ilJli, rli'gariirnio6t(vino rr,t ), Mahboobnasar District [( ]Dealer)Petitioners/AccusedAND1The State of Telangana.,Rep.,PP, [High Court ][at Hyderabad' ][Hyderabad]2The Deoutv Director [of Agriculture (PP), ][lnsecticides lnspector' 0/o' ][Joint]oirectoi ot Agriculture, [Mahabubnagar District]...ResPondenUComPlainant Between:

Petition under Section [482 ][of ][Cr'P'C ][praying ][that ][in ][the ][circumstances]stated in itre Memorandum [of ][Grounds of Criminal Petition' ][the ][High ][Court may be]to [quash the ][complaint ][in ][c.c. ][No. ][186 ][of ][2015 on the fite of ][court ][of the],i.rr"o Judicial Magistrate [of First Class at Mahabubnagar]

t.AO:1OF 20151C[RLPMP.][ NO: ][1203][5 ][0F ][2015]

Petition under Section [482 ][of ][Cr.P ][C ][praying ][that ][in ][the ][circumstances]statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmaybeoleased lo stav all further [proceedings in ][C.C ][No' ][186 ][of ][201 ][5 on the file of Court][i"il" i.iii"J'n"giti"t" [Lt ][First ][Cliss: ][At ][Mahabubnagar including arrest ][of ][the]Petitioners [pending disposal of the Criminal ][Petition]

This Petition coming on [for ][hearing, ][upon ][perusing ][the ][Memorandum of]Grounds of Criminal [Petition ][and ][upon ][hearing ][the ][arguments ][of ][Sri ][M]Ravindranath Reddy, [Advocate ][for ][the ][Petitioner ][and Sri ][Vizarath ][Ali' ][Assistant]Public Prosecutor [(TG) ]on [behalf ][of ][the Respondent No ][1 ][and None appeared for]the Respondent No.2.

The Court made the following: [ORDER]

THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE [E. ][V. ][VENUGOPAL]CRIMINAL PEf,ITION Nos.12O86 [of ][2O15]ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is [frled ]under [Section ][482 ][Cr.P.C.']seeking to quash the [complaint ][in ][C.C'No.186 of ][2O15 ][on ][the ][file]of the Court of the Judicial [Magistrate ][of ][First ][Class ][at]Mahabubnagar.

2. Heard and perused the rebord.

3. The brief facts of the case are that [the ][incharge ][Deputy]Director of Agriculture [(PP) ]Insecticides [Inspector ][O/o. ][Joint]Director of Agriculture, Mahabubnagar [District ][visited the ][shop ][of]M/s. Narsinin Dathathrey'r-rlu [and ][Company ][(M/s. ][NDT ][& ][Co.,) on]26.O3.2013 and [petitioner ][No.2 ][was present ][in ][the ][shop ][and ][that]he w'as informed the [purpose ]of visit. [He ][found two ][varieties ][of]Insecticides namely Milux, [Technical name: ]Quinolphos [25 ][o/o ][EC,]Manufactured bf insecticides India [Limited ][Batch ][No.CO-2O4 ][(21]and Lethal, Chemical name: 1364. [On ][suspicion ][of the ][above]said Insecticides; he in the [presence ][of Mediators ][took ][samples ][of]the same as per the procedure and served [Form ][XX. ][One sample]is sent to the Deput,v Director of Agriculture, Pesticide [Testing]Laboratory and coding centre, Samedti, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad

and one sample is sent to Joint Director of [Agriculture,]Mahabubnagar in case any legal [proceedings ]are taken or [for]analysis by the central Insecticide Laboratory, another [sample ][is]given to the dealt and conducted pancharrama. After analyzingthe sar4ple, i/c. Deputy Director of Agriculture [(PP) ]ofhce of theJoint Director of Agriculture, Mahabubnagar cum Insecticideinspector, received analytical report dated 10.O4.2013 tromDeputy Director of Agriculture (IA) PTL and coding center,Hyderabad on29.O4.2O13, the sample of Quinolphos 25 [7o ][Batch]No.Co-204 failed to confirm the relevant BIS specifications in [the]test of Active ingredient test and acidity test and hence [it ][is]misbranded. Immediately on the same day, i/c. [Deputy Director]of Agriculture (PP) oflice of the Joint Director of [Agriculture,]Mahabubnagar cum Insecticide Inspector went to M/s. [NDT ]&Co., and verihed the stock but was already sold out. In [the]presence of dealer and two panchas, seized [(i) ]38 bottles of [IOO]ml each of Milux 9 Quinnolphos 25 Yo EC total [quantity ][of ][3.80]liters (ii) stock register [(iii) ]Bill Book containing [40 ]bills [from ][l2O ][1]to 1600 used upto St.No.l516 (iv) Stock [supply ][invoice]No. 1231 t29146 dated 07 .O2.2013 of Insecticides [India ][Limited.]

On 01.05.2O13, 01.05.2O13, i/c Deputy Director [[of ][Agriculture ][(PP)]][[Agriculture ][(PP)]][[(PP)]]

4. On 01.05.2O13, 01.05.2O13, i/c Deputy Director [[of ][Agriculture ][(PP)]][[Agriculture ][(PP)]][[(PP)]]offrce of the Joint Director of Agriculture, [Mahabubnagar ][cum]Insecticide Inspector filed requisition [before ][the ][Hon'lcle ][Court for]custodial permission of the seDed [records ][and the ][said]permission was accorded on 07.05.2013 [and ]the [same ][is ][entered]urde Crl.Reg.No.l5/ 13 in [CRP.No. ][143 ][of ][2013. ][On ][24.06.2014,]Joint Director of Agriculture, [Mahabubnagar ][District ][submitted]letter to District Collector and [Magistrate, ][Ma-habubnagar ][for]issue of prosecution [proceedings ][and ]the [sarne ][was ][issued. ][That]therefore as the petitioners contravened [Section ][3k(i) ][of]Insecticides Act 1968 and [are punishable ][under ][Section 29(1) ][of]Insecticides Act, 1968. The [present ][complaint is ][frled.]

On 24.O4.2O13, the Commissioner and Director ofof

5. On 24.O4.2O13, the Commissioner and Director ofofAgriculture, Hyderabad issued a show cause [notice ][to ][M/ ][s.]Insecticides India Limited to show [cause ][within ][15 ][days ][from ][the]date of receipt of the notice, as to [why ]the misbranded [batch]should not be [prohibited ]from being [stored ][and distributed in]entire state of A.P. under [Section ][18 ][(1) ][of Insecticides ][Act ][1968.]The same M/s. Insecticides [tndia ][Ltd., ][uide ][its ][reply ][dated]09.05.20 13 informed [the ][Commissioner ][that ][it ][is ][not ][satisfied]with the result [and ][wants ][to contest the contents ][of ]the analytical report and the copy of the sameAgriculture, Mahabubnagar.Agriculture, Mahabubnagar.

was marked to Joint Director of

6. On tZ.OS.2Ol3, the Joint Director of of Agriculture,Mahabubnagar issued a show cause notice to petitioner No.2stating that he has supplied misbranded pesticides and violatedprovision of clause 29 (rl (al of Insecticide Act 1968 and tosubmit explanation within 7 days from the date of receipt of thenotice. Petitioner No.2 uid.e its reply d,ated, 27 .OS.2O 13 soughtpermission for re_analysis of the sample. Similar request wasalso made to Assistant Director of Agriculture (ADA)Nagarkurnool. After receipt of the reply from M/s. InsecticidesIndia Ltd., the Commissioner of Agriculture, Andhra pradesh,Hyderabad utd.e lnis proceedings dated 2g.05.2013 passed ordersnot to stock/ store/ sell and distribute in Andhra pradesh the saidQuinolphos 25 [o/o ]EC Batch No.CO 2O4 as interim measure merelystating that the explanation dated O9.OS.2O13 is not satisfactory.Neither the Commissioner of Agriculture, Andhra pradesh,Hyderabad nor the JDA, Mahabubnagar have taken any steps forsending the sample to CIL, Faridabad.

On tZ.OS.2Ol3, the Joint Director of of Agriculture, ii III

I

I

I

4

7. Respondent [No.2 frled ][the complaint ][against ][the ][petitioners]in the Court [of ][learned ][Judicial ][Magistrate ][of First ][Class at]'Mahabubnagar on [O4.O4.2O15 ][under ][Section ][29 (1) ][of ]Insecticides Act, [1968 ][after obtaining sanction from the ][Collector]and District Magistrate, [Kurnool ][on ][24.06.2014. ][The ][learned]took [cognizance ][of ][the ][case ][on ][16.04.2015 ][and]Magistrate numbered as C.C.No.186 [of ][2015 ][and ][therea-fter, ][issued]summons to the [petitioners. ][Challenging ][the ][said ][cognizance,]the petitioners [have ][preferred the present ][Criminal ][Petition.]

The learned counsel appearing learned counsel appearing counsel appearing [[for the ][petitioners ]][[petitioners ]][[has]]

8. The learned counsel appearing learned counsel appearing counsel appearing [[for the ][petitioners ]][[petitioners ]][[has]]argued that accused [No.1 ][is the ][marufacturer ][and accused ][Nos.2]is the dealer of M/s. [Narsinin Dathathreyulu and ][Company. ][It ][is]further submitted by [the ][learned ][counsel for ][the ][petitioners ][that]on 26.O3.2013, the [2"d ][respondent inspected ][the ][shop of ][accused]No.2 and took samples of [Insecticides namely ][Milux, ][Technical]25 [7u ][EC, Manufactured ][by ][insecticides ][India]name: Quinolphos Limited Batch No.CO-2O4 [(21 ][and ][Lethal, Chemical ][name: ][1364]ald the sarne [was sent to analyst. ][Thereafter, ][the Analyst sent ][a]report on 10.04.2013 and 29.04.2013 [stating ][that the ][sample]referred was misbranded quality as [defined ][in ][Section ][3(K)(i) ][of]the Act and thereafter, a show cause [notices ][dated ][24.04.2013]

arrd 17.05.2013 were issued and the sarne was suitably repliedon 09.O5.2O13 and 2Z.OS.2OL3 controverting the report of theInsecticides Analyst dated 10.O4.2013 and 2}.M.2OL3. In thesaid reply notice, the petitioner clearly expressed its intention tocontrovert analysis report and requested to send the sample forreanalysis. But the respondent Department instead of sendingthe samples for re-analysis without depositing the samples beforethe competent Court had dragged the proceedings and then thecomplaint was lodged only on 04.O4.2OLS.

9. As per Section per Section Section 22 of the Insecticides of the Insecticides the Insecticides Insecticides Act, the InsecticideInsecticideInspector shall divide sample taken into three portions. Oneportion of the said sample so divided. shall be restored to theperson from whom the sample was taken by the sample wastaken by the Insecticide Inspector. One another portion shall beimmediately sent to the Insecticides Analyst for testing. The othersample shall be produced before the court. In this case, theaforesaid procedures have not been followed. As per Section 24 ofInsecticides Act, the Analyst shall submit his report of analysis tothe Insecticide Inspector within a period of 3O days in duplicate.The Insecticide Inspector on receipt of the report shall deliver onecopy o[ the report to the person from whom the sample was taken As per Section per Section Section 22 of the Insecticides of the Insecticides the Insecticides Insecticides Act, the InsecticideInsecticide artd retain tl.e [other ][copy ][for ][use ][in ][arty ][prosecution ][in ][respect ][of]the sample. Such report shall [be ][conclusive ][evidence ][unless ][the]person from whom the sample [was taken ][he was ][within ][28 ][days]of receipt of the report notified in [writing ][to ][the ][Insecticide]or the Court [intending ][to ][adduce ][evidence in]Inspector. controverting of the report. [If ][the ][sample ][has ][not ][been ][re-]ana)yzed as [per ][Section 24(3), ][this ][Court by ][its ][own ][motion or ][on]the request either [of ][the complainant or ][of ][the ][accused cause ][the]sample of the insecticides [produced ][before ][the ][Magistrate]under Section 22(61 of the Act [to ][be ][sent ][for ][analysis ][to ][the]Central Testing Laboratory.

10. In this case, the [prosecution has ][been ][launched ][before ][the]tria-l Court after a long delay and the [shelf ]life [of the ][insecticides]came to expire by [September ][2013 ][even ][before ][filing of ][the ][case.]Thereafter, the [petitioners ]have lost their [valuable ][right]under Sectioa 24(41 of the Act to seek [re-analysis ]of the [sample]before the Central [Insecticides Laboratory. ][Therefore, ][the ][charge]sheet is liable to be quashed.

11. To support his contention, he relied on the decision of theHon'ble Supreroe Court in the case of Northern Mineral Limited v.

Union of India and Anothert and Northern Minerals Limitedand others a. Ro,jasthan htnntment and. anotherz.L2. The learned Government Advocate appearing for theand others a. Ro,jasthan htnntment and. anotherz.L2. The learned Government Advocate appearing for therespondent has contended that the 2"a respondent has inspectedthe shop of accused No.l on 26.03.2013 and at that time, theytook samples and the sarne was sent for laboratory for analysisand the satne was analyzed and found misbranded in respect ofactive ingredients content even after allowing the permissibletook samples and the sarne was sent for laboratory for analysisand the satne was analyzed and found misbranded in respect ofactive ingredients content even after allowing the permissibletolerance limits of 37o deviation from the nominal declared value.Thereafter, the explanation was called for from the concernedthrough registered post and given sufircient time to answer andthe explanation was not satisfactory. After the completion of thethrough registered post and given sufircient time to answer andthe explanation was not satisfactory. After the completion of theformality, the complainant placed rnaterials before theSanctioning Authority. After verifying the materials and applyingmind, the Sanctioning Authority issued consent letter toSanctioning Authority. After verifying the materials and applyingmind, the Sanctioning Authority issued consent letter toprosecute the case and thereby, the complaint has been frled.Since the chemical analysis report is as against the petitioners,the petitioners have to face trial. There is no proceduralSince the chemical analysis report is as against the petitioners,the petitioners have to face trial. There is no procedural '1zoto; [z ][scc ][z:o]'12oto; [t2 ][scc ][:os]'12oto; [t2 ][scc ][:os]

irregularities [as ][alleged ][by ][the ][petitioners ][and][ this ][petition ][ts]Iiable to [be ][dismissed.]

13. On [perusal ][of the ][records' ][it is ][observed ][that ][the]respondent [has filed complaint ][before ][the ][learned Magistrate and]the same [was taken ][on ][frle ][as ][C'C'No ][186 ][of ][2015' ][The]petitioners' [contention ][is ][that ][on 26 ]['O3 ]['2013 ]' [the ][two ][varieties ][of]Insecticides [namely ][Milux, ][Technical name: ][Quinolphos ][25 ][Vo ][EC']Manufactured [by ][insecticides ][India Limited ][Batch ][No'CO'2O4 ][(21]and Lethal, [Chemical ][name: ][1364 were ][taken' ][The ][2"a ][respondent]sent one [sample ][to ][Insecticides ][Analyst' ][The ][expiry date of ][the]is [September ][2013' ][As ][per report' ][the ][samples ][were]sample referred misbranded [quality ][as ][dehned in ][Section ][3(K)(i) ][of ][the]Insecticides [Act, ][1968 ][for ][reasons ][given ][therein ][Thereafter' ][the]2.d respondent [has ][issued ][show cause ][notice ][to ][the ][petitioners]on24.o4.2ol3and17.o5.2013.ThereplyI.[.aSSenton09.05.2013 [etd' ][27.05-2013 controverting ][the ][report ][of ][the]Insecticides [Analyst ][dated ][1O'04'20 ][l3 ][and ][29'O4'20 ][13' ][The]has [frled complaint ][only on ][O4'O4'2O15 ][r'vhich ][was]prosecution taken on [frle ][on ][16.04'2015' ]

14. The main contention of the petitioners is that as [per ]Section22 of Insecticides Act, the Insecticide Inspector ought to [have]divided the sample into three portions. One portion of the saidsample is to be restored to the person from whom the sample wastaken tiy the Insecticide Inspector and another portion shall beimmediately sent to the Insecticides Analyst for testing andanother sample shall be produced before the Court. But in thiscase, there is no any sample sent to the Court as Per Section22 of the Insecticides Act. Further as [per ]Section 24 of theInsecticides Act, Insecticide Analyst shall submit his report ofanalysis to the Insecticide Inspector within a [period ]of 3O days induplicate. In turn, the Insecticide Inspector on receipt of [the]report shall deliver one copy of the report to the [person from]whom the sample was taken and retain the other copy [for ][use ]inany prosecution in respect of the sample. But in this [case, the]said procedures have not been followed.

15. Further the contention of the [petitioners ]is that [the]opportunity to re- analysis under Section [24(31 ]of [the Act ][could]not be availed by the petitioners, since the 2"d respondent [failed]\to send\ the sample for re analysis. Alread-v the petitioners [have]sent a reply, dated 09.O5.2O13 and 27.O5.2O l3 by [controverting]

,.I

the report and rebutting the allegations of the show cause notice.While so the 2"a respondent has to take steps for re-analysis ofthe sample as per Section 2apl of the Insecticides Act.

16. Such report shall be conclusive e'ridence unless the person from whom the sample was taken within 28 days of receipt of thereport notified in writing to the Insecticide Inspector or the Courtintending to adduce evidence in controverting of the report. If thesample has not been re-analyzed as per Section 24(3) of the Act,this Court by its own motion or on the request either of thecomplainalt or of the accused cause the sample of theinsecticides produced before the Magistrate No II under Section22(61 of the Act to be sent for analysis to the Central TestingLaboratory.

17. In Northern Mineral Limited v. Union of India andAnother (1 supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paraNos.22, 24,25 as under:- "22.From the language and the underl_ving object behind Section 24(3) and (4) of the Act as also fromthe ratio of https:/ /www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis thedecisions aforesaid of this Court, we are of the opinionthat mere notifying intention to adduce evidence incontroversion of the report of the Insecticide Analyst

confers on the accused the right and [clothes ][the court]jurisdiction to send the sample for analysis by theCentral Insecticides Laboratory and an [accused ][is ][not]required to demand in specific terms that [sample ][be]sent for analysis to Central Insecticides [Laboratory. ][In]ogr opinion the mere intention to [adduce ][evidence ][in]controversion of the report, implies [demand ]to [send]the sample to Central Insecticides [Laboratory ][for ][test]and analysis.

24. No proceeding was pending before any [Court,]

when the accused was served with [Insecticide Analyst]report, the intention was necessarily required [to ][be]conveyed to the lnsecticide lnspector, [which ][was ][so]done by tJ-e appellant and in [this ][background]Insecticide Inspector was obliged [to ][institute]complaint forthwith and [produce ][sample ][and ][request]the court to send tlle sample for [analysis ][arrd ][test ][to]the Central Insecticides Laboratory. [Appellant ][did]whatever was possible for it. Its [right ][has ][been]defeated by not sending the [sample ][for ][analysis ][and]report to Central Insecticides [Laboratory.]

25. It may be mentioned [herein ]that [shelf ][life ][of ][the]insecticides had expired [even ][prior ][to the filing ][of ][the]complaint. The position [therefore ][which ][emerges ][is]that by sheer inaction the shelf [life of the ][sample of]insecticides had expired and for that [reason ][no ][step]was possible to be taken for its test and [analy'sis by]Central Insecticides Laboratory. Valuable [right ][of ][the]

appellant having been defeated, we are of the opinionthat allowing this criminal prosecution against theappellant to continue shall be futile and abuse of theprocess of Court."

Relying on the above judgment, ttre Apex Court in Northent Minerals Limited and others a. RajasthanRajasthanGoaernment and another (2 supra) the Apex Court held asunder:-under:-

12. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel forthe respondents in distinguishing the right of the personfrom whom the sample was taken, as mandatedunder Section 24(3) is concemed, we need only refer tosub-Section (4) of Section 24 of the Act which extends theabove right, even to the complainant and theaccused. Read harmoniously, therefore, we have nohesitation to conclude, that insofar as the person fromwhom the sample was taken, the right to raise anobjection is circumscribed by requiring him to indicate hisintention to do so within 28 days of the receipt of the copyof the report. There is however no such Iimitation of timeplaced by the legislature on tl're complainant and/or theother accused proceeded against. In the above view of thematter, insofar as the present appeal is concerned, u,'efind, that a vital right vested in the appellants/accused toget the sample re-tested (from the Central lnsecticidesLaboratory), to controvert the report of analysis of thesample obtained by the Insecticide Inspector, stoodfrustrated. The appellants have lost the right to disprove their guilt. The appellants cannot [be ][proceeded against,]when they have, for no fault of their own, Iost a [vital ]rightof defence. We are satisfied to conclude, that under [sub-]Section (4) of Section 24 of the Act, an accused [other than]a person from whom the sample is taken, also has a rightto adduce evidence in controversion of the InsecticideAnalyst's Report, and in case the [accused ][avail ]of theabove right under sub-Section [(4) of ][Section ][24, ][he must]bear the expenses of the test or analysis, to [be ][made by]the Central Insecticides Laboratory [(under ][sub-Section]5 of Section 24)."

18. On careful reading of the [aJoresaid ][judgments, ][it ][is ][clear]that ttre underlying object behind [Section ][24(31 ][and ][(4) ][of the ][Act]is that mere noti-ffing intention [to ][adduce ][evidence in]controversion of the report of the [Insecticide Analyst confers ][on]the accused the right and clothes the [court ][jurisdiction ][to ][send]the sample for analysis by the Central [Insecticides ][Laboratory]and an accused is not required to demand [in ][specific ][terms ][that]sample to be sent for analysis to Central [lnsecticides ][Laboratory.]When the accused was served with Insecticide [Analyst ][report, ][the]intention was necessarily required to be [conveyed ][to ][the]Insecticide Inspector, which [was ][so ][done by ][the ][appellant and the]Insecticide Inspector was obliged [to ][institute ][complaint ][forthwith]and produce sample and request [the ][court ][to send ][the ][sample for]

ana-lysis and test to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. In thiscase also, the petitioners submitted reply controverting the reportof the Insecticide Anaiyst dated 1O.04.2O13 and 29.04.2O13 alsoexpressed its intention to controvert the report and adduce theevidence as per the Act. But the 2.d respondent failed to raunchprosecution immediately after the reply of the notice but theprosecution was launched on 18.03.2013 with defect and thesarne was returned and thereafter it was re_presented on16.04.2015. This is after the lapse of expiry period. Therefore, theva-luable right of the accused has been defeated.

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments hasclearly stated that shelf rife of the insecticides had expired evenprior to the filing of the complaint. The position therefore whichemerges is that by sheer inaction the shelf life of the sample ofinsecticides had expired and for that reason, no steps was takenfor its test and analysis by the Central Insecticides Laboratory.Therefore, allowing this criminal prosecution against thepetitioners to continue shall be futile and abuse of process ofCourt. In the case on hand also, the prosecution was launchedaJter the expiry of the aforesaid sample and the right of the I

accused [to ][sent ][the ][sample was ][defeated ][and thereby, ][this ][court]

is inclined [to ][quash the ][chargg ][sheet']

20. In [the result, ][this ][Criminal Original ][Petition ][is ][allowed ][and]

the charge [sheet ][in ][C'C'No' ][186 ][of ][2015 ][as ][against ][the]petitioners / [accused ][on the file ][of ][the ][learned ][Judicial ][First ][Class]Magistrate,MahabubnagarDistrict,isherebyquashed.

MiscellaneousPetitions,pendingifany,shallstandclosed.i'/SD/-P. PADMANABHA [REDDY]ASSISTANT BEGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//< ,,.v'SECTION [OFFICER]. ..i.To,1 . The Judicial [Magistrate ][of ][First Class ][at ][Mahabubnagar']L .t_i. o"; Ca io [sri ][ril ][Ravindranath ][Reddv' Advocate [oPUC]]i. i*o cc"io [the public prosecutor, ][High ][court ][for the ][state ][of ][relangana at]Hyderabad [OUTI4. Two CD CoPiesSM-,/n,v sX.:ii"'SD/-P. PADMANABHA [REDDY]ASSISTANT BEGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//< ,,.v'SECTION [OFFICER]. ..i.To,1 . The Judicial [Magistrate ][of ][First Class ][at ][Mahabubnagar']L .t_i. o"; Ca io [sri ][ril ][Ravindranath ][Reddv' Advocate [oPUC]]i. i*o cc"io [the public prosecutor, ][High ][court ][for the ][state ][of ][relangana at]Hyderabad [OUTI4. Two CD CoPiesSM-,/n,v sX.:ii"'

.:ii"'r.fr;,$,. A: [. ][1 ][r-\l]

i,tl

{

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2911212023

.:ii"'r.fr;,$,. A: [. ][1 ][r-\l]

i,tl

{

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2911212023

ORDER

CRLP.No.12086 of 2015

CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED

e

--\'$

,fi+tt(J'

-;. 5i..i$#E}i ,i,:-:i'ffiffirt;*t'ii E.fffill .i' ['gi ][: ][;;!i.t ]['].1 [,4t]

d4.1i'ii1i-,,[S ][TA}]€q5ou1 3 llAB [2024]*i\'a+)a.iC ''r[90]

E -:.. l

.l