Pulluru Chandra Reddy, Vs State of Telangana

¶1

t^3?ri

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD.

¶3

MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8271 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pulluru Chandra Reddy,, S/O Chenga Reddy, Aged 47 years, Occ.Private Employee, R/O H.No.5-7, DP. Kandriga, Mallavaram Village, Renigunda Mandal, Chitturu Dist.

¶9

Kotishetti Nagaraju,, S/o. Rangaiah, Aged 35 years, Occ. Bunisness, R/o. H.no.'t-36, Rajivnagar, Avilala Village, Thirupathi Urban, AP

¶10

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.7 & 3

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Telangana,, Rep by Station House Officer, Nalgonda ll Town P.S., Nalgonda district, Through the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶13

Uppala Suman Raman,, S/O Nathail, Age. Unkown Occ. Mandal Agricltural Officer, Nalgonda.

¶14

... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶15

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 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. 1658/2022 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Offences at Nalgonda against the Petitioners/Accused No.7 and Accused no.3 in the interest of the justice.

¶16

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025

¶17

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\Iemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in C.C No. 1658 12022 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition & Excise Offences at Nalgonda, pending disposal of the above main Criminal Petition.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri ABDUL AZAM KHAN, Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. JITHENDER RAO VEERAIVIALLA, the

¶19

7

¶20

Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondent No. 1 and none appeared for' the Respondent No.2.

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8271 of 2025

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short^'the BNSS'), seeking quashment of proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 1658 of 2022, on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition & Excise Offences, Nalgonda.

¶26

The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.7 and 3 in the Calendar Case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 417, 406, 409, 120-B of the lndian Penal Code,^'1860 (hereinafter^'lPC').

¶27

I have heard Mr. Abdul Azam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing respondent No.1 -State

¶28

The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 28.06.2020, acting on credible information that spurious seeds were being sold by Aditya Agri Products, located in Srinagar Colony, Nalgonda, the complainant, accompanied by the Task Force, mnducted a surprise inspection of the premises. During the inspection, BT Cotton Hybrid seeds purporting to belong to Niagra Seeds Company and Sri Seetharama Seeds Company were found. Upon further verification, it was revealed that the seeds were packaged in non-genuine packets differing from the official company packaging and had not been entered into the stock registers. Enquiries

¶29

2

¶30

NTR, J Crlp 827t-2025 |

¶31

.1

¶32

further disclosed that approximately 100 such packets had already been sold to farmers- Additionally, it was ascertained that Niagra Seeds Company had not authorized the said retail unit as a licenced dealer. Consequently, the seeds were seized under a^panchanama, and samples were sent to the laboratory for analysis. The complainant also addressed queries to both Niagra Seeds Company and Sri Seetharama Seeds Company regarding the authenticity of the seeds; however, the companies failed to respond to the show-cause notices issued. Following this, a formal complaint was lodged, and after investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and 11 other accused individuals.

¶33

Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners' name is not mentioned in the initial complaint. Their implication in the case is solely based on the confessional statements of co-accused persons, which are inadmissible as evidence against the petitioners. The petitioners denied the allegation that they operates a seed processing unit in Aler and have a prior history of selling spurious seeds to farmers and accused of purchasing rejected or substandard seeds from various companies, processing them at their unit, and repackaging and supplying them to accused Nos. 1,2, 11, and others. He contends that aside from the inadmissible confessional statements of co-accused persons, there is no substantive material evidence linking him to the alleged offences. He further relies on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Crl,P. No. 10913 of 2022, dated / 18.04.2023, wherein, under similar circumstances, it was held that a co-

¶34

\

¶35

NTR, J Crlp_8271 _2025

¶36

-7

¶37

accused's confessional statement, by itself, is insufficient to establish culpability. The Court further observed that . the essential ingredients of cheating under Section 415 IPC were not made out and that the allegations of misappropriation under Sections 406 and 409 IPC were untenable due to the absence of necessary foundational elements. Accordingly, prayed that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners be quashed.

¶38

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the question of whether the petitioners were operating a seed processing unit at Aler, as well as their alleged prior involvement in retailing spurious seeds through various outlets, are matters that require adjudication during the course of trial. lt was further contended that the contents of the charge sheet, along with the mediators' report, form part of the evidentiary material, which must be evaluated during the trial proceedings. In light of the foregoing, the learned Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

¶39

7 . I have perused the material on record.

¶40

The averments contained in the charge sheet and the accompanying prosecution record allege that the petitioners, arrayed as accused Nos.7 and 3 respectively, purchased weeded-out or spurious seeds from various companies, reprocessed them at their own facility, and subsequently packaged and sold them under the labels of different seed companies to accused No.1 and other co-accused. The materials relied upon in the final report, along with the statements of the complainant and other eyewitnesses,

\

.--

.1

(

NTR, J Crlp_8271 2025

¶46

primarily pertain to the search and seizure operations conducted at Aditya Agri Products. Notably, the statements of eyewitnesses/LW-3 and LW-4 refer to the^presence of Niagra Seeds at the aforementioned^premises, allegedly sourced from ARSK Shop and Thirupati Seeds & Fertilizers, located in Amangal Mandal. However, upon a meticulous examination of the entire charge sheet, there is no assertion or allegation directly linking the petitioners/accused Nos.7 and 3 to either of the shops mentioned by the witnesses.

¶47

Furthermore, the charge sheet is silent on any material evidence indicating that the^petitioners collected weeded-out seeds from the companies or that they processed, packed, or distributed such seeds through the network of co-accused. Thus, entire^prosecution case against the petitioners hinges exclusively on the confessional statements of other coaccused, which were made before the lnvestigating Officer during the course of investigation.

¶48

lt is well settled that such confessional statements, made to a Police Officer and not supported by any independent or corroborative evidence, are inadmissible against a co-accused. ln the absence of any prima facie material demonstrating the^petitioners' involvement in a criminal conspiracy, or establishing the essential ingredients of cheating under Section 415 IPC or criminal breach of trust under Sections 406 and 409 lPC, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, \

¶49

f I

¶50

5

¶51

NTR. J Crlp_8271 2025

¶52

the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in the Calendar Case are liable to be quashed.

¶53

For the aforesaid, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, all proceedings in C.C. No. 1658 of 2022, on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition & Excise Offences, Nalgonda, are hereby quashed against the petitioners/accused Nos.7 and 3.

¶54

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶55

SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶56

I

¶57

\ //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER

¶58

I

¶59

To,