Pappula Balakishan, Vs The State of Telangana

2 K. Gangarajam, S/o. Rajanna, Age.35 years, Occ. Mandal Revenue lnspector Tahsil office Sirikonda, R/o. Honnajipet village, Dharpally Mandal, Nizamabad District, Telangana State.

¶13

.RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 CC No. 531 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class at Armoor in so far as Petitioner/Accused.

¶15

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

¶16

Petition undgr 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 grant stay of all further proceedings against the petitioneriAccused in CC No.53'i of 2025 on the file of the Additional Judicial [\4agistrate First Class at Armoor pending disposal of the main criminal petitron.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the l\4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI ANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶20

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE /I EADA

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION No.311 of 202t

Date:09.01.2026

Between:

Pappula Balakishan

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and another

¶28

. Respondents

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 51 8 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitior ( r/accused in C.C.No.531 of 2025, on the file of learned Adrl lional Judicial Magistrate First Class at Armoor, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 112(1)(ii) of Bf aratiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2Q23 and Section 7 of Essential Cor modities Act, 1955.

¶31

I

¶32

2

¶33

ETD Crl.P.No.l11 2025

¶34

Heard Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1- State

¶35

The specific allegations against the petitioner/accused are that the petitioner herein had procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 19.03.2025 at about 11.00 hours, the petitioner was found in possession of 2 bags PDS rice weighing around 70 Kg

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioner for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations on their face value cannot be sustained against the petitionei. Further, this Court in Crl.P.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 33493 of 2015 while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein cannot be continued and quashed the proceedings. The petitioner herein is also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

t \

J

3

ETDJ CrlP.No.311 2026

¶41

I I

¶42

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strl ,mitted that as per prosecution, the offence said to have been ul nmitted by the petitioner is cheating and violation of Sections 7 :' the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and hence requested to pe ss appropriate orders.

¶43

Perused the material available on record.

¶44

Sections 7 of the Essential Commodities l,r t contemplate that any person contravenes with the prod I ;tion, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities or a )etrnent in this regard, is punishable. As per the prosecution, tho petitioner had procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after sr pply from the dealer-

¶45

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.Nc 7227 of 2O2S has considered the identical facts and observed th;r1 -

¶46

) )

¶47

-j..4

¶48

"There is no averment indicating that the petitioners n any way deceplively induced the beneficiaries to part with the :t cplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the^pDS rice purchas i by them with the petitioners and they dishones y misapp,r priated or conveded to their own use or used it in violation of a lat 'ul diection or contract. ln the absence of essential factors, on he face of prosecution, this Courl finds it to be a fit case lo € @rcise the

I

\

4

ErDJ Crl-P.No.3u 1026

¶53

jurisdiction under Section 52S of A/VSS, 2025. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioners r.s abuse of process of raw.,,

¶54

The facts and circumstances of the present case also are similar to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section S2g ofBNSS, 2023 by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.

¶55

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused tn C.C.No.531 of 2025, on the file of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class at Armoor. are hereby quashed

¶56