Allowed

Bommera Srinivas v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Feb 2023CRLP/78/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed Criminal Petition No.78 of 2019 quashing proceedings against a rice mill owner in C.C.No.258 of 2019. The court held that purchasing PDS rice from beneficiaries did not interrupt distribution under the Control Order, and there was no evidence establishing cheating or contravention of the Essential Commodities Act.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.258 of 2019 against the petitioner were quashed.

Bommera Srinivas Vs State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^325e ]

¶2

: ,i

¶3

I i I il li lr I I il it ,til il ll ti !i tiIlt il fi II I! lt 5 iiI

¶4

: i j i I , i i I i 1 i I i

¶5

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶6

MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTTCE D.NAGARJUN

¶9

Between:

¶10

CRIMIN AL PETITIO N NO:78 oF 2019

¶11

p.om.perg sliniva,s, S lo_J.ayaramuru, Aged 43 years, occ - Business owner of Manikanta Rice Mi[o R/o-Bhoornp'atti vittag6or MirJ.i.roi nr.il;t,-sidbr-;;i District.

¶12

AND

¶13

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 2

¶14

State of relangana, Rep By its public prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad. 2. K. Beesanna, sub lnspector of porice, Rajapet p.s. yadadri-Bd;ft:rtB?$r?flt

¶15

o.ro"r,i35;EiX,R=^T,t+

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to QUASH the Proceedings in c.c.No.258 of 201g on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Aler against the petitioner/ Accused No.2 in the interest of^justice

¶17

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2019

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to Stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitionerlA2 in C.c.No.2S8 of 2018 on the fite of Judicial First Ctass Magistrate at Aler against the petitioner/Accused No.2 pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminat petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri SOMAVARAPU SATYANARAYANA, Advocate for the Petitioner and the public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1

¶20

The Court made the fottowing: ORDER

¶21

¶22

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7B of 2OL9

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This petition is filed by A2 in C.C.No.25B of 2O1B on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Aler to quash the charge sheet cognizance of which \'as taken for the offence under Sections 42O read rvith 34 IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Acl- (for short, "the Act")

¶26

The facts in brief, as per the charge sheet are as under:

¶27

a) On 09.05.2017, at 8.OO a.m., on receiving information, the de-facto complainant along w'ith his staff rushed to the outskirts of Kondeticharvu viliage and found TATA Ace bearing No. AP 36 X 4708, wherein PDS rice u,as being transported illegally. On enquiry, the driver and o<sup>rner of the vehicle confessed that he along with his brother-in-larn' Bhukya Arun and others have been collecting PDS rice from thc card holders of different villages of Yadagirigutta, Turkapally, Rajapeta and Aler for Rs.6 /- per kilo and thereafter selling the same in Medak Distr.ict for higher prices. The seized PDS rice and the cr.ime vehicle were kept at police station. A panchanama was recorded and seizecl

¶28

¶29

the Government PDS rice about 2o quintals in (2zl bags and the TATA Ace bearing No.Ap 36 X 4TO8.

¶30

b) Basing on the panchanama, a case in crime No.62 of 2ol1 for the offences punishable under Section 42o read, with 34 Ipc and Section 7 of the Essential commodities Act was registered and after completion of investigation, police have filed charge sheet stating that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under section 42o rpc read with 34 Ipc and section 7 of t!":re Essential Commodities Act.

¶31

Aggrieved by the said charge sheet, crl.p.No.zg of 2019 is filed on the following grounds:

¶32

i. Even if the entire ailegations alreged against the petitioner are taken into consideration, no offence is committed by the petitioner. It is stated that section 7 of the Act envisages that if any person contravenes any order made under section 3 0f the Act, he shall be punished as prescribed under the said section. section 17 A of the Act deals only with interruption in the process of distribution. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is that the petitioner and others are purchasing PDS rice from

¶33

¶34

Yadagirigutta, Turkapally, Rajapeta and Aler. Thus, the petitioner is not interrupting in the process of distribution, as such, no offence is committed by the petitioner. The 2nd respondent is not'the competent person to search and seize the stocks as per clause 17 of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008. The petitioner never collected any PDS rice and he is the owner of rice mill doing rice business and therefore, prayed the Court to allorv the petition

¶35

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶36

Now, the point for determination is whether the charge sheet filed in c.c.No.258 of 2ol9 against the petitioner can be quashed?

¶37

Clause l7(A) of the Control Order, 2008, runs as under:

¶38

"L7lAl Interruption in the process of Distribution:- "No Fair Price Shop dealer or card holder or any person shall be allowed to cause interruption or intcrfere with the process of smooth distribution of scheduled commodities under Public Distribution System or other Government schemes at any level right from Food Corporation of India godown point to Fair price Shop point, till the scheduled commodity reaches the intencled beneficiary. Any such attempt of interruption or interfering with such process s-hall be treated as an abcrment and be deemed to have contravened this order,

¶39

¶40

thereby committing an offence under Section 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955."

¶41

The petitioner is charged under section 42o read with 34 IPC and section 7 of the Act. According to the charge sheet, the petitioner has purchased PDS rice from card holders of different villages of Yadagirigutta, T\rrkapally, Rqiapeta and Aler at Rs.6/per kg and thereafter sold the s€une in Medak District at higher prices. so the petitioner has purchased the pDS rice @ Rs.6/per kg from the card holders.

¶42

B. In w.P.No.7811 of 2016 and batch, a Division Bench of this court, while dealing with similar issue, has held as under:

¶43

"A careful reading of the above re-produced Clause shows that the same is attracted if a fair price shop dealer or cardholder or any person causes interruption or interferes with the smooth distribution of scheduled commodities under the public distribution system or other Government schemes at any level right from the Food Corporation of tndia godown to the fair price shop point, till the scheduled commodit5r reaches the intended beneficiary. From the unequivocal plain language of this provision, it is clear that it gets attracted when there is interruption of tbod grains from the stage of FCI godown till it reaches the end beneficiary i.e., cardholders. The provision does not comprehend any activity relating to an.v commodity falling under the Control Order, 2OOg once it reaches the cardholder. There is no whisper either in the detention order or in the grounds of detention that any of the detenus is interrupting the smooth functioning of the scheduled commodities from the FCI godown point till it reaches intended beneficiary. On the contrary, the whole

¶44

¶45

allegation against the detenus is that they have been purchasing the PDS rice from the cardholders. Therefore, this activity of the detenus completely falls outside Clause 17(A) of the Control Order, 2008. Once there is no prohibition on such activity either under the 1995 Act or under the Control Order, 2008 which undisputedly is the only Order that governs distribution and control of rice meant for public distribution system, the detenus cannot be accused of committing any offence. As the respondents failed to show that the detenus have contravened the provisions of any other Control Order framed under Section 3 of the 1995 Act, the alleged activities of the detenus are not liable for any penal action. Once their activities do not constitute an offence under Iaw, their preventive detention under the provisions of the 1980 Act cannot be sustained.

¶46

Hence, the impugned orders of detention are set aside and consequently the detenus shall be forthwith released from jail. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed."

¶47

The petitioner/A2 is the owner of the rice mill. He has been selling the rice to the Government for distributing the sarne to the needy persons under the public distribution scheme through fair price shops. It is alleged that A1 and A.3 to AB have been purchasing the rice from the individuals in their village and in the neighbouring villages, which were supplied to them under public distribution scheme and after collecting the PDS rice from various persons, A1 and A3 to AB used to sell the said rice to the petitionerf A2, who used to purchase them and again sell them back to the Government for higher price, thereby used to cause loss to the Government.

¶48

¶49

without going into the merits of the case, as long as the petitioner/A2 has been purchasing the rice not from the fair price shop dealer directly and from the consumers by payin$ money, prima facie, he has not committed any offence. As seen from the entire charge sheet, involvement of the petitioner in this case is only basing on the confessional statement of other accused. According to the prosecution, the petitioner/A2 is in the habit of purchasing the pDS rice from 41, A3 to Ag ancl selling it to the Government for higher price. There is no record to that effect except confessional statements. when the crime vehicle was seized, the petitioner / A2 was not present. Though it is alleged by the prosecution that A1 and A3 to Ag were selling the said rice to the petitioner/A2, there is no record to that effect. No PDS rice is seized from the possession of the petitioner/A2. If at all the petitioner/A2 is in the habit of purchasing PDS rice, he must be procuring the rice from various individuals including A1 and A3 to Ag. The respondents have not seized any rice or anything connected to it from the petitioner/A2. The respondents have also faited to file any material to show that there were business transactions between

¶50

¶51

¶52

A1 and A3 to AB on one hand and the petitionerlA2 on the other hand. Except the confessional statements of A1 and other accused, there is no material to show that the petitioner /A2 is involved in purchasing of PDS rice and selling the same to the Government at higher price

¶53

Above all, the respondents have not filed any record before the Court to show that the petitioner has been selling the rice back to the Government. If at all the petitioner has been selling the rice to the Government, which was collected from the beneficiaries under public distribution scheme, there must be some record to show that the rice was sold by the petitioner and that the Government has paid money to him. So as long as there is no such record, the allegation of the prosecution that the petitioner is purchasing the PDS rice and selling it again to the Government for higher price in order to make money is not at all convlnclng

¶54

The other offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 42O IPC, rvhich runs as under

¶55

"42O. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, - Whoever cheats and thereb! dishonestly induces the pcrson deceived to aeriver anji property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the

Fy rl JIii

*191" or any part of a valuable securit5r, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capabl. oi u"irr! converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a teim which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.,,

¶60

In order to fasten the liability under section 42o rpc also, the prosecution is expected to prace a strong prima facie material to conclude that the petitioner from the inception with dishonest inte,tion has deceived the person, who was put to loss.

¶61

L4. In the case on hand, there is no complaint from any of the sufferers or any of the persons aleging that he was deceived by the petitioner on account of his act of being purchasing the pDS rice. It'is not the case of the prosecution that the pDS rice, which is supposed to be reached to the beneficiaries, was purchased by the petitioner/A2 in the middle and again sold the said rice to the Government, thereby the persons, who are expected to receive the same, have made a complaint that they were denied the benefit of getting the pDS rice. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has deceived the same persons in the process of alleged purchasing of pDS rice. As per the prosecution version, on coming to know that 41 and A3 to A8 have purchased the PDS rice from the ration card holders of

surrounding villages for Rs.6/- per kg and while the sarne was transporting to unload at the petitioner's rice mill, at the outskirts of Puttagudem village, LWs.l to 3 caught hold of the said rice and seized the rice as well as the crime vehicle in the presence of LWs.4 and 5 and as per the confessional statement of A1, LWs.l to 3 proceeded to the petitioner's rice mill^and apprehended the petitioner I A2 along with PDS rice weighing about 4350 Kgs. Therefore, even if the entire version of the prosecution is expected to be true and correct, there is not even an ingredient w'hich attracts the provision under Section 420 IPC. In vier,r, of the above, no case is made out against the petitioner and therefore, continuation of proceedings will amount to abuse of process of Iaw.

¶66

In the resuit, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.258 of 2O1B on the file of the Judicial First C1ass Magistrate at Aler, against the petitioner /A2 are hereby quashed.

¶67

Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

¶68

//TRUE COPY//

¶69

To, 1^{The Judiciat First} Class Magistrate at Aler.

¶70

3 5?:Z,A,Bti,o39e^{orrice', F. 5 iirEp"tr,v-aoadriBh_o_nsir.} :rffi.'?J,fi^{".BltlfF?3:"'"?,i[?'fi i3ilT3no,:",,',fl L"{?#3/r",ansana} 5. Two CD Copies

.--

HIGH COURT

DNR,J

DATED: 1310212023

STR f*
r)o 2 B llAH ztrI] ",':
*

¶77

ORDER

¶78

CRLP.No.78 of 2019

¶79

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶80

tYh>*

¶81

'i-i''i. .' ' ,.".

Bommera Srinivas v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bommera Srinivas v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tak Karan Singh , Kalu Singh and 2 Others Vs the State of A.P.

Mohammed Rafi Vs the State of A.P. and Another

B.Srinivasulu, Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp and Another

Kumbaro Suresh and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Dr.Jagdish Kumar Telang Vs Smt.Anupama , Divya and 3 Others

P. Saroja Vs the State of A.P. and 2 Others