CRLP/16900/2026 of VENISHETTY RAMESH, Vs The State of Telangana, on 12 October 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petitron has been filed bv the petitioners/accu sed Nos.1 and 3 seeking to quash the prcceedings in C.C.No.385 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Parkal

2. Heard Mr.A.Shiva Sainath. leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Pub..ic Prosecutor 1br respondents

3. The specilic allegation against the petitioners is that they have procured PDS rice''from the benefrciaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 18'02'2018, the petitioners were found in possession of 150 quintals ofPDS rice'

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper' The aliegations, even taken at their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Court, in Crl P'No'5709 of 2019, 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 petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners'

5. The leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the offences said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act') and requested to pass appropriate orders.

6. Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes w'ith the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after suppll' from the dealer '/. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.722j ot 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that "fhera is no dterment indiceting that the petitioner in any wtt_t dLtce'ptivcly induced the beneficiaries to part vilt the supplied PDS ricc or the berrc.fici,try- entrusted the PDS rice purchased b1t them with the p(titioner und they dishonestlv misdppropiated or converted to thei,- oitn use or used it in violtttion of a lawful direction or contrqct. In th(. absence of assential factors, ctn the face of prosecution, this Court /ind:; it to be a lit cqse to exerciie the j urisdiction under Sectnn 5 28 of BNSS 202-1. Thus, continlrurxce of proceedings against the petitioner is etbuse oJ process ol' luw ".

8. fhe 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 t,l exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS bv applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners helein

9. ,,\ccordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed anrl the procee(lings rn Cl.C.No.385 of 20i8 on the file of the leamed

Judicial First Class Magistrate at Parkal, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3, are hereby quashed' Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SE $* cfroN OFFICER The Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Parkal The Station House Officer, Parkal Town Police Station, Warangal Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Cou( for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri Arvapalli Shiva Sai Nath, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies //TRUE COPY// To,

AB

HIGH COURT DATED: 121'1012026

ORDER

CRLP.No.16900 of 2026 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION vrE STATE ,s o

)e ( q oo 17 ocl 2U26 a- t: -I .a( t,t DSr 'ATO\