Allowed¶52

Etyala Venkatesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Feb 2026CRLP/1683/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: PDS rice; procurement from beneficiaries; 24 bags / 10 quintals seizure dated 27.12.2020; Section 7 Essential Commodities Act 1955; quashing of criminal proceedings; Section 528 BNSS inherent jurisdiction; no beneficiary complaint alleging deceptive inducement; abuse of process of law; Coordinate Bench Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 applied; Crl.P.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 3349 of 2015 referred; C.C.No.3768 of 2022; Warangal; Telangana High Court; Criminal Petition No. 1683 of 2026; decided 10.02.2026; J. Sreenivas Rao, J.; petition allowed, proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.3768 of 2022 quashed against petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ¶52

Etyala Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.3768 of 2022 quashed against petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.3768 of 2022 against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 7 of the EC Act are liable to be quashed under Section 528 BNSS, given the absence of any beneficiary complaint alleging deceptive procurement of PDS rice.

¶37

Court's answer

Finding the facts and circumstances similar to those before a Coordinate Bench in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025, this Court found it a fit case to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS by applying the same analogy.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

The Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.3768 of 2022 pending before the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Cases under the Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge at Warangal, Warangal District, are hereby quashed against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2.

¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad (J. Sreenivas Rao, J.) — Criminal Petition No. 1683 of 2026, decided 10.02.2026: ALLOWED. Proceedings in C.C.No.3768 of 2022 (Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal) quashed against petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for possessing 24 bags (10 quintals) of PDS rice allegedly procured from beneficiaries at cheaper rate for wrongful gain (seizure 27.12.2020). With no beneficiary complaint alleging deceptive procurement, and the facts found similar to a Coordinate Bench decision in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 — which had observed absence of any material showing deceptive inducement of beneficiaries or misappropriation, treating continuance as abuse of process — the Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, applying the same analogy, and quashed the proceedings. Pending miscellaneous applications closed. Crl.P.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 3349 of 2015 were cited by counsel in support.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1683 0F 2026

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 Etyala Venkatesh. S/o Kumaraswamy, Age- 34 years, Occ_ Driver, R/o. H. No. 1-6i4, Enumamula. Deshaipet, wa'rlng%t oi.siriti-'"' "

¶8

2 Santhosham Samoath. S/o Rajireddy, Age_ 50 years, Occ_ Coolie, R/ o. H. No22-2-180, BC corony, oesi;inti, u11fl;,tRE[SilsED

¶9

AND

¶10

No lAND 2

¶11

The State of Telanoans. through S.H.O.. p.S. Matwada, Warangal police Commissionerate heoresente-d Oy euOf ic eioiecrior, rf igh Court at Hyderabad ......RESPONDENT NO I

¶12

......RESPONDENT NO I

¶13

Sri, Md. Fazat, HC-995, p.S. Matwada, Warangat District

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶15

Petition under section 52g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds ot ciiminai petition, ine High Court .a17-0" pleased to quash the Charge sheet in C(-No. Sibg ot 2022, on the file of Honorable special Judicial Magistrate ot rrrst Crass Jor Trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act-cum- rv nJoitionar Junior civir Lrog" ,i Warangal, Warangal District

¶16

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

¶17

Petition under Section 492 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal "petition,the HiSh d;;i;;; be preased to stay of aI fu(her proceedings in c.c tto-. szoe of 2022, on the fire of Honorabre Principar Junior civir L uoge--c um-L udicia r t'tagistrate of First crass at Hanumakonda, Hanumakonda District

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri KANDHIKATLA SAt KRTSHNA ,Advocate for the petitioners and the SRl. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, AdditiONAI PUbIiC PTOSECUIOT ON bEhAIf Of thE Respondent No.1 and of None Appeared for the Respondent No. 2

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

IN THE HIGH CO URT FORTHE STATE OF T'I],ANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENI\ ,{S RAO

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.l683 of 201,r

¶23

Date:t0.02.2026

¶24

Between:

¶25

Etyala Venkatesh and another

¶26

... Petitioners/Accuse,l Nos. I and 2

¶27

AND

¶28

The State of 1'elangana through S.H.O., p.S. Matwada. Warangal Police Commissionerate, Represented by I,tLl Iic Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad and another.

¶29

Lespondents

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This Criminat Petition has been filed seeking I I quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3768 ol 2022 pending on rh( flle of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class f,or Trial o f lases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act-cum_lV Addit cnal Junior Civil Judge at Warangal, Warangal District, wherein th petitioners

¶32

were arrayed as accused Nos.l and 2, for the offencr ltunishable under Section 7 of The Essential Commodities Act, lg I 5 (for short 'EC Act').

¶33

¶34

JSR, J Crlp-l683 2026

¶35

Heard Mr. Kandhikatla Sai Krishna, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1

¶36

The specific allegation against the^{petitioners/accusedNos.l} and 2 is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the satne for wrongful gain and that on 2'7.12.2020 at about 05.30 hours, the petitioners were found in possession of 24 bags of PDS rice containing I 0 quintals.

¶37

Leamed counsel for the petitioncrs submits that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary, alteging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations, even taken at their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Court, in Crl.P.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 3349 of 2015, 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.

¶38

¶39

JSR, J t rlp_l683 2026

¶40

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor subnr ts that as per

¶41

prosecution, the offence said to have been conrrr ilted by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 of th r IlCl Act and requested to pass appropriate orders

¶42

Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate thet any person contravenes with the production, suppty, distributior and trade of essential commodities in this regard ls punishabl: As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS r ce from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer.

¶43

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.Nr, 7227 of 2025

¶44

has considered the identical facts and observed that

¶45

"There is no qyermenl indicating that the petitioner itt t tv nrty deceptively inrluced the beneficiaries ro part with thc .su1y l.^.,1 PDS rice or lhe beneficiury entrusted the PDS ice purchosed b1, I .n tith lhe petitioner and they dishonestly misepproprialed or Lpt|'ttcd to lheir own use or used it in violation ol a lawful dircction t)r ( )\traL.t. In the absence of essential factors, on the luce ol prosc,t t^,tn. this Courtfncls it to be aft case to exercise thejurisdicuon unit l :(,ctrc)n 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance oJ proceedings ,tl,t tts! tlle petitioner is abuse ofprocess of law".

¶46

The facts and circumstances of the present cz ! j also similar

¶47

to those in the above case and hence, this Court finl; it to be a fit

¶48

case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 52U rf BNSS by

¶49

¶50

JSR, J Crlp_1683 2076

¶51

applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein

¶52

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.3768 of 2022 pending on the fiIe of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Cases under Telangaria'Prohibition and Excise Act-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge at Warangal, Warangal District, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and2, are hereby quashed.

¶53

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶54

closed.

¶55

To,

¶56

Sd/. P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER \ -'"

¶57

The special Judiciar t\4agistrate of First crass for Triar of cases under Telangana^prohibition a"na Excise n"i--crr:lv njiiil""iLr"i"icirrii .luoge at Warangal, Waranoal District

¶58

The station House bfficer tr/ratwada porice station rvratwada warangar District 9 9n" 99^{to SRt. KANDHTKATLAsAt KRTSHNA} il;o""t" lopuct 4. Two CCs to Public prosecutor, Hign Court toi tf.,)u Strt"'oifetang'ana at Hyderabad [OUTI

¶59