Allowed¶48

Akram @ Abdul Sattar, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Jan 2026CRLP/358/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings; PDS rice procurement from beneficiaries; 17 quintals PDS rice possession (03.08.2024); cheating S.318(a) r/w S.3(5) BNS 2023; Essential Commodities Act S.7(1); Section 528 BNSS quash jurisdiction; no beneficiary complaint or deceptive inducement; coordinate bench precedent Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 applied; Crl.P. No. 358 of 2026; decided 19.01.2026; High Court for the State of Telangana; Justice Tirumala Devi Eada; C.C.No.2091 of 2025, VII ACMM Nampally; Madannapet Police Station; Civil Supplies Department.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.2091 of 2025 (VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad) quashed against petitioner-accused No.11; miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stood closed. ¶48

Akram @ Abdul Sattar, Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.2091 of 2025 (offences under Sections 318(a) r/w. 3(5) BNS, 2023 and Section 7(1) Essential Commodities Act, 1955) against the petitioner/accused No.11 should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

The facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to those in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025; hence it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

The Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.2091 of 2025 on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, against the petitioner-accused No.11 are hereby quashed.

¶48

Key takeaways

Exposition of Section 7 Essential Commodities Act: a person contravening regarding production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities is punishable; as per prosecution, the petitioners procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer.obiter¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada) allowed a Criminal Petition under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 and quashed C.C.No.2091 of 2025 (VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad) against Akram @ Abdul Sattar, accused No.11, charged under Sections 318(a) r/w. 3(5) BNS, 2023 and Section 7(1) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for alleged procurement of PDS rice from beneficiaries and possession of 17 quintals of PDS rice on 03.08.2024. Relying on a Coordinate Bench decision in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025, where it was observed that absent averments of deceptive inducement of beneficiaries or dishonest misappropriation/conversion, continuance of proceedings is an abuse of process, this Court found the facts identical, applied the same analogy, and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶1

I I j

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 358 OF 2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

Akram @ Abdul Sattar, s/o. Fatha Mohammed, aged 44 years, occ. Business, r/o. H.No 5-28125, Hayat Colony, Near Vidya Dayani College. Shanthi Nagar, Balapur, K V Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

..PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1 1

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. By the Public Prosecutor, Telangana High Court, Hyderabad

¶13

Sri K. Pradeep Kumar, Junior Enquiry lnspector, Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS

¶15

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated ln lhe ltrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 2091 of 2025 on the file of the Vll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad, to the extent of the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.^'l 1 and pass such other order or orders, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the CASC

¶16

l.A. NO: 1OF 2026

¶17

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the [/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the personal appearance in C.C. No 2091 o'f 2025 on the file of the Vll Addl. Chief tr,4etropolitan lvlagistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad, to the extent of the petitroners, who is arrayed as

¶18

Accused No.1 1 and pass such other order or orders, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶19

Thrs Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri tvl.W R Jayakar, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Addrtional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

--l

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶23

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶24

CRIMINAL PETIT|OI.' No.358 of 2026

Date: 19.01.2026

Between:

Akram @ Abdul Sattar

...Petitioner/accused No. 1 1

¶29

AND

¶30

The State of Telangana, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Telangana High Court, Hyderabad and another.

¶31

... Respondents

¶32

ORDER

¶33

This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.11 under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for tn short^'BNSS, 2023') seeking quashment of proceedings C.C,No.2091 ol 2025 on the file of the learned Vll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(a) r/w. 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (for short'BNS') and Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short^'EC Act').

¶34

¶35

Heard Sri M.W.R. Jayakar, learned counsel for the^petitioner as well as Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No. 1-State

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the specific allegation against the^petitioner is that he has^procured PDS rtce from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 03.08.2024 at about 04:00 Hrs, the petitioner was found tn possession of 17 quintals of PDS rice.

¶37

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 petitioners. 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 is also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶38

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per prospcution, the offence said to have been committed by the

¶39

¶40

I (

¶41

petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and requested to pass appropriate orders 6. Perused the matenal available on record

¶42

Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities in this regard, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer.

¶43

B. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that:

¶44

"There is no averment indicating that the petitioners in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioners and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a laMul direction or contract. ln the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise the^jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioners is abuse of process of law."

¶45

The facts and circumstances of the present case also similar to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise^jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by applying

¶46

¶47

the same analogy and to quash the^proceedings against the petitioner herein

¶48

10 Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the procebdinqs in C.C.No.2091 of 2025 on the file of the learned Vll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad, against the petitioner-accused No.11, are hereby quashed

¶49

I\rliscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶50

SD/- B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,