CRLP/16391/2026 of Bhukya Ramchandu Chandu Ramachandru Vs The State of Telangana on 12 October 2026

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, lligh Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad

2. P. Shankar, HC-1977, PS Nellikudur, Mahabubabad District. Pincode. 506368 ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated rn the lt/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.222 of 2026, on the file of the Additional Judrcial [Vlagistrate of First Class at [t/lahabubabad, in so far as Petitioner/Accused No. 2, is concerned. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the l/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No 222 of 2026, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Mahabubabad., including appearance and attendance of the Petitioner/Accused No. 2, pending drsposal of the above Criminal petition. This Petition comrng on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri GAJE RAGHU , Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondents. The Court made the following: ORDER

,--,; IN THE, HIGH COURT FOR I'HE S'IA'I'E OT' TELANGANA AT HYDERAI]A[) .TIIE IIONOURABI,E SRI JT,STICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.l639t of 2026 CNR No. HI}HC0l0687892026 Between IlhLrkva Ran-rchandu fri Chandu (rr.' Rarnachandru ... Petitionerr Accused No.2 AND -['he State o1'-l-clangana and anothcr Resltondents ORDI,]R I'his Crirrinal Petirion has been filed lry. rhc pt:titioner/accused No.l sceking to qLrash the proceedings in C.C.No.222 o1. 2026 on rhe tlte o1- the Additional Judicial Masistrate of First Class ar Mahabubabad, Ibr the c,ffenccs pr-rnishable undcr Secrio, 420 or'IpC. Sccrion 7(a) ol'thc I:sscntial Cornnodities Acr. 1955 (fbl short rhc E.C. Act,) and Section 34(E) ofthe Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 196g. l. I lcard \4r.Ca jc Raghu. lcar-ncd counscl lor thc petrrioner, and l\4r.Jithcnder Rap Veerarnalla. Iearnecl Additional pLrblic Prosec utor for the rcspondents. Date: 12.10.2026

.) l. The specific allegation against the pctitioner/accused No.2 is that he along with other accused had procured PDS rice from the benehciaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 22.12.2019 at about 3-00 noon, the petitioner and other accused were lound in possession of 90 bags consisting 45.00 quintats of PDS rice, 15 bags ofblackjiggery each bag weighing 50 kgs, total 7.5 quintals and l3 bags of Alum each bag weighing 50 kgs, total 6.5 q uintals of alum.

4. Leamed counsel fbr the petitioner would submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the rice was procure<i deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioner fbr prosecution is untenable and improper' The allegations, even taken at their lace value cannot be sustained against the petitioner. l;urther, this Court, irr Crl.P.No.5709 ol 20 19, while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioner therein could not be continued and accordingly quashed the proceedings. The petitioner is also entitled to the same reliel and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner

5. 'fhe learned Additional PLrblic Prosccuror subrnits that as per prosecution. the olfence said to have been committed bv the pe titioner is cheating and violation of'Section 7 of the I:.C. Act and requestecl to pass appropriatc ordcrs

6. Section 7 of the E.C. Act contemplates that any person essential com urod ities. contravcncs with thc prodLrction. sLrppll. clistribution and tradc of petitioner has procured PDS rice frorn the beneficiaries after supplv fiorr the dealer

1. A Coordinare Bench of'this Courr in Crl.p.No.72l7 o1'2025 has considered the identical facls and observed that: '''Ihart, t' n,) Lt\'./nut'11 uklt(ttiu! tlt,rt tlt, ltt,titiottt,r itt ttny. r rtj. :/e,.c1tltrelt rutlLrtt,l tlt,'ht'tttlicitrtc: tt) l)tu./ \t.itlt tllt,\upl)/iul [,]).\ r,ca .tr tha hertc/i.iur.t. ettrru.ttad tha I'DS rtcL l)ut(lkt\t(l bt tlrcn ,'tth tha ,tclitxnar Jnd rheI lishona:tl.t nti.sLrltpntpriutacl ot (oltrcrtfd te tllt,ir own u:a or usccl it in riolulion of o lottfii clirectkn or contruct. [tl Lhe thrtttca ,t/ a.s.sr:tttitl futtor.s. on tht' lott of pro.sattttton. thit ( ourt ltn,l.s 1t lt) hc d ltt L'u.\c tt) (\tt. i\t' tlt lur rL/i' tit)n utldL,t .Sccli r,,rr j28 r,,/ 1J,\.! !. -013. Thu:. totrtirtttLtntc of ptocectlirtl: trguin.\t /h( pctitioner i: uhu.,e ()f lro('t.\\ o/ /tt\1

8. l'he facts and circumstances of the present case also :jimilar to tho:ie in the abovr'case and hence. this (lourt llnds it to be a fit IS punishablc. As pcr the prosccution, thc case to exelcise iurisdiction r.rndcr Section 528 of IINSS br, applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.

9. Insofar as the allegation against the petitioner that he along with other accused were lbund in possession of l5 bags of black jaggery each bag weighing 50 kgs, total 7'5 quintals and I 3 bags of Alum each bag weighing 50 kgs, total 6.5 quintals of alum, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue raised in this criminal petition is squarely covered by the orders passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.l5636 ol'l0t-1, dated 04.03'2022 and in Crl. P.No. 7 562 of 2025 dated 24'06.2025.

10. L.earned Additional Public l)rosecutor has not opposed the submission rnade by the learned counsel fbr petitioner' I l. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective parties and thc ordcrs passed by this Coufi in Crl.P.No. 15636 of 2013, dated 04.03.2022, and in Crl'P'No 7562 of 2025, dated 24.06.2025, the proceedings against the petitioncr/accused No.l in C.C.No.212 o1'2026 on the file ol the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Mahabubabad, are liable to be quashed. -\_

12. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective parlies and in view, ofthe orders passed bv this Court in C,'l.P.No. 15616 ot'10 I3. datccl 0.1.03.1011. and in (.rl.p.No.7-562 o12025, dated 24.06.2025, the proceedings in C.C.No.222 of 2026 on the fi le of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of lrirst Class at Mahabubabad. against the pctitioncr/accuscd No.2. ar.e hcrebv quashed.

13. Accordingly, this criminal perition is allowed. Pendinq rnisccllancor-rs applications. i1' artr,. shl II stancl ciosed. //TRUE COPY// '^?i;13,"^i,Yfl ilSiJ'"#R ltl-- sEcfl/oN To, OFFICER Telangana,

The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Mahabubabad f il ,rO'",,' First Class tVlaoistrate at Thorrur The Station House officer' li"lii'o" Police Statron' Mahabubabad ;.,;; t* .AJE RAGHU Advocate loPuc] Two CCs to PUBUC pnosecUiOn Hign court for the State o{ at FlYderabad [OU I I

2. .)

6. Two CD CoPtes ADK/A.BK

HIGH COURT DATED: 1211012026

ORDER

CRLP.No.16391 of 2026 ALLOWING THE CRLP a- )' L

* .'a'lr I STATE ( 11 ocl2s v C) l() el '4/ tt \ $ .zt ,/ \ I( \"0 $\ot''