CRLP/3762/2022 of BANDI MEKALA BALARAMUDU Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 31 December 2024

ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[1] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.1, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in C.C.No.109 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri for the offence punishable under Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act[2].

1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’

2 for short ‘EC Act.’

2. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Naidana, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case without there being any material against him to connect the Petitioner/Accused No.1 with the alleged crime. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner in the commission of the offence and the same has to be proved during trial. At this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioner cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Point for Determination

5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:

Whether the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in C.C.No.109 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.?

Determination by the Court

6. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trial

court, court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 7. The present case has been registered alleging that, on 14.08.2015 at 10.30 a.m., on receipt of credible information about illegal possession and transportation of PDS rice, Respondent No.2 along with the Police and Panchayat Authorities proceeded to Atthiralladinne Village on Kottalapalli – Atthiralladinee road of Peddapappur Mandal and while conducting vehicle check, at about 11.00 a.m., found one Mahindra Maximo Auto bearing No.AP 02 TB 8042 coming from Kottalapalli side and on seeing the Police, the driver and the other person in the Auto, who are Accused Nos.1 and 2, tried to skulk away. On apprehension and questioning by the Police, they revealed their identity and Petitioner/Accused No.1 confessed that he used to purchase PDS rice from the card holders in Tadipatri for Rs.10/- kg and sell the same to the hotels in Tadipatri for Rs.20/- and he secured 21 packets each containing 50 kgs and while Accused Nos.1 and 2 were transporting the rice to Yadiki, they were caught by the Police. Accused No.2 also confessed in the same lines. As such, the present case in Crime No.162/2015 for the offence under Section 7(1) of EC Act on the file of Peddapappur Police Station. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner/Accused No.1 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him.

8. Though it is the contention of the Petitioner that, the entire special report was prepared by the Police without there being any third person’s evidence, and the Petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case, the same is not a ground to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner. The contents of the charge sheet would clearly go show that, the present case was registered not only based on the confessional statement of the Accused No.2 but also the statement of the Petitioner/Accused No.1 himself. Further, there was seizure of 21 packets of PDS rice under cover of Mahazarnama from the possession of Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the contention that the Petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case without there being any material against him, cannot be considered. There is verifiable material to be disclosed during the trial before the trial Court. As such, the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 cannot be quashed at the threshold and no prejudice is going to be caused to the Petitioner herein except subjecting himself to trial.

9. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 and accordingly, the petition deserves dismissal.

10. In result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________________________

Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Date:31.12.2024Dinesh

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Crl.P.No.3762 of 2022

Dated:31.12.2024 Dinesh