Telangana High Court
CRLP/16786/2026 of Pittala Raj Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana, on 9 October 2026
THE HIGH COURT FORDTHES-T-ITE OF TELANGANA 'iffA'+lB',Sli,'J^'.il'-'?l'R?I%?i- THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENTVAS RAO PRESENT TION NO :16786 oF2026 cRlMINALPETI ""i"o**o.,ri:ri,L"'i3#:,'l'ft:'.1fl :.11;i'1:l$:':::,^r::i;:,.1'": Maruthi Nagar' Manc
t 3303I
rN THE HIGH COURT FORDTHES-T-ITE OF TELANGANA
'iffA'+lB',Sli,'J^'.il'-'?l'R?I%?i-
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENTVAS RAO
PRESENT
TION NO:16786 oF2026
cRlMINALPETI
""i"o**o.,ri:ri,L"'i3#:,'l'ft:'.1fl :.11;i'1:l$:':::,^r::i;:,.1'":
Maruthi Nagar' Manc
,ili:1"il'{;R,""1,9,83:i,t?l{,iffi .:liiiul'r'r"n".L'i"toiitrict .
-r"u""*' v,,"* [*:J 8""":r* H:fu:"g""'i; .3Xi#'fll;'fflStil vears. Occ Bustne k-"Iirnrg"tDistict ,- A^^,,rn \rcars occ Lorry owner, Rio H No'
^il!;1,'F*u:-'];*?ffi ;:*;n:i'::"'^""?'5,'i':'{".,vears,occLorry u r,*n,r, M3I::h P?iilTf,[#j,li''l;ijl ;;;;,:,ta warangar owner' R/o H No "'PETITI.NER'A..,'ED
Nos'1 to 5
o*l
.n" rl:*: lrl",A"BilfuXi'u31.1.:?l:iS,'ff:i'"r'
High court at Hvderabad
through S.H.o., P.s. Jalpur' rvra'rerrv"- -
.. Respondent
2 Aram pg.l?i'l- ?/t^o,1111ix;,"1ffi$:i":;f3i",Lio'"
rahsirdar (civil
supplies)' chennur'
"RespondenuDe-facto
complainant
,"***1diidfr,"i.ut.i;f.i;
ffi*dijil*;-*:J'p::I'ft'ftt
!t!:Fr!!!t!-r!q,-!xF!E:rdy
t.A. NO:10F 2026
*:i:i: Ti eii{ ":'"s,/ff ,::,"it;}i,: ,J:ilH
:H:,,1,11""*: :l:
n ces sta ted i n
trflr3lffi lr-]:1+i'rfrt;*t,*qfrflffi ,:,",'"ffr#
^.,.1I:
Pgtliot coming on for hearing, upon perusino ol.unmi'lal Petition and- uo"" r.''^]I^^o.',^l"^"-'l perusrng the Memoranouftl oi Grnr rr 39^rl:,:ro,tnepeiit,#eT1".."1'9-t1"""sffi;:':l[?Xi]I,:il,]iHtfi ttiff p,o.u",Li-on'il"rJ':ie"":rT.i"T,i[r,":XT*Hyff ::[,lt"lrulru:;mt The Court made the following: ORDER
--
IN THE, }IIGH COIJRl'I.'OR'I'HI] S'TAI'E OF"TELANGAN^
A't HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PU'tl'l'lON No.16786 of 2026
CNR No. HBIICO I 0695192026
Date:09.10.2026
Between:
Pinala Ra.i Kurnar and tbr-rr othcrs
Pct itionc rs/Acc uscd Nos. I to 5
ANI)
'l'he State of 1-elangana and anothe r
Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioncrs/accused Nos. I to -5 sccl<ing to clLrash thc proceedings in C.Cl. No.636 of 2024 on the lllc of the learned Junior Civil .ludge- cum-Judicial Magistrate of F'irst Class Magistrate at Chennur, fbr the off-ences punishable r.rndcr Section 318(4) ol the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (fbr short. 'the BNS') and Section 7 ot-the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (fbr short 'the E.C. Act'). ?. Heard Mr. Anuganti Praneeth, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr.Jithender Rao Veerarralla. learned Additionai Public Prosccutor tbr thc rcspondcnts
The specilrc allcgation against the petitionersiact used Nos. I to 5 is that they had procured PI)S rice from the beneflciaries at cheaper rate to sell [he sarre 1br prot-it and on 08. 10.2024 at abotrt I(i-00 holrrs. thc petitioners uele fbund in possessiou of 65.80 qr-rintals of PDS rice without there being any complaint from any beneficiarl . alleging that the rice rras procured deceptively or with a climinal intent and charging the petitioners 1br prosecution is untenable and improper 'Ihc allegations. even taken at their lace value cannot be sustaitted agairrst the petitioners. []urther. this Court, in Crl.P.Nc.5709 of 2019, w'hile considering the same situation. categorically observed that the off-ences alleged against thc pelitioners therein could not be continued and accordingly qLrashed the proceedinl-rs. l'he petitioners are also entitled to the sante reliel and hence prayed to quash the proceedirtgs against the petitioners
1. l.earned r:ounsel fbr thc petitioners w'ould subrnit that
5. lhc lcarncd .\dditional PLrblic Prosecr.rtor submits that as pel prosr:cution, the oflf-ence said to have been committed bv the petltloners ls cheating and violation o1 Section 7 of the E.C. Act and r,:cluestetl to pass appropriate otclers,
------
6. Section 7 of the E.C. Act contemplates that any person contravenes with thc production, supply, distribution and trade ol' essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the pctilioncrs have plocured PDS ricc liom the beneficiaries afier supply ltom the dealer
1. A Coordinate Bench of'this (,oufi in C,'rl.P.No.722l of 2025 has considered the identical t-acts and observed that 'There i.s fio .t\'!rtlcnt nli(dtny .lllit tltc p(ttlit)ntr in utt.y v'd.\ deceptivel.y incluted thc beneficiuries to port v:ith the rupplied PDS rice or the henefic'iur1 entru.\te(l thc ?DS rice purchusad by them with the petilrcner and the.,, dishonestl.y ntisctppropriated or conyerted to their t)\ttn Ltsc or tr.satl it n tioltttiut of u latful tlirection t)r conlruLr ln lh( ttb.:encc of a.t.scrtliul futtrtrt. on tlr, lirtc ol ltrosacutittn. tltn ( rturt fincl.s tt to bc u lit .i/.!(, /o t,rcr('l\( tlr itrritlittirn utltl(,r.\((/it)n -i-1\ o/ /J\.\.1 )0)J lltus. Lonlultltc( of ltnrt'i,r/ttus ttyttut\t tlt( l)('tttt)ttrr t\ ttht\t' of proces,s of lclr' .
8. T'he lacts and circumstances of the present case also similar to those in the aborc case and hcncc. this (loLrrt llnds it to bc a tlt case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against thc petitioners hcrein
Accordingly. the Crirninal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No.636 ol' 2024 on the file of the learned Jr"rnior Cir il judgc-curr-.ludicial \4agistratc of l;irst Class .:1 Nlagistrate at Chennur, against the petitioners/accu sed Nos. I to 5, are herebl' quashed I)cndrng miscellaneous applications. if any. shall stand cl,csed //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. BHAVANI SWAMY AssrsrANr *=o&t*o* To, SECTION OFFICER
1. The Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class At Chennur
2. The Station House Officer' Jaipur Police Station' Mancherial District' 3 One CC to SRI ANUGANTI PRANEETH, Advocate [OPUC]
4. Two ccs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High court for the State of Telangana' at Hyderabad [OUT]
5. Two CD CoPies ADK/BA \+
HIGH COURT DATED: 0911012026
ORDER
CRLP.No.16786 ot 2026 ALLOWING THE CRLP ."*t+ ic I 6 0[T 202S R -tBE SI4 14: (n \ 't)i,i iIJ (, 7: a-: * \ ./ -,-. * ..i/ % rr .<ltsF