Telangana High Court
Smt. Rehana Begum vs The State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11894 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Cr.No.60 of 2023 on the file of the Magnoor Police Station, Magnoor Town and Mandal, Narayanpet District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'Act 1955').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant stated that on receipt of credible information, when inspection was conducted in Omer Rice Mill, Maganoor, they found shortage of 8750.00 quintals of Government paddy that was allotted for CMR and the petitioner failed to justify the said shortage. It is alleged that the petitioner is indulged in clandestine business by diverting the Government paddy stocks for pecuniary advantage in violation of the provisions of the Government and that he violated the provisions of the Custom Milling Agreement between the Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and Rice 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11894 of 2023 Millers and has misappropriated the paddy stock amounting to Rs.2,92,73,827/- for pecuniary gains.
3. Heard SriK.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for petitioner/accused, and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2/de facto complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without giving any notice to the petitioner, the authorities visited her business premises in her absence. He contended that the petitioner produced her representation addressed to the District Collector requesting grant of time to procure the deficit paddy which was damaged due to unexpected rains and non supply of gunny bags by the Department. He asserted that if the quantity of damaged stocks is subtracted from the quantity supplied, the question of short fall in the stocks does not even arise and without considering the same, the authorities framed report with an intention to defame the petitioner. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
3
SKS,J Crl.P.No.11894 of 2023
5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 - State submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner/accused are with regard to shortage of 8750.00 quintals of Government paddy that was allotted for CMR and the said misappropriation values approximately at Rs.2,92,73,827/-. He contended that the said allegations are serious in nature and the matter requires full-fledged trial. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that on inspection by the Authorities it was allegedly found that the petitioner has misappropriated8750.00 quintals of Government paddy stocks for pecuniary advantage/gains and has violated the provisions of the Custom Milling Agreement between the Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and Rice Millers.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11894 of 2023 Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh 1, whereunder, in paragraph No.10 it was categorically held as under:
"10. From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11894 of 2023 consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not."
8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofState of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 2, observed as under:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."
9. Reverting back to the facts of the present case as stated above, and taking into account the fact that allegedly the petitioner has misappropriated the Government paddy worth Rs.2,92,73,827/-. The contention of learned counsel for the 2 (2012) 10 SCC 155 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11894 of 2023 petitioner is that paddy was damaged due to unexpected rains and that the petitioner reported the same to the Authorities but they have not responded for the same.
10. While dealing with the petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint are constituting offence and whether the continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law. On going through the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner is admitting the variation in paddy stocks and is contending that the paddy was damaged due to unexpected rains. The said fact cannot be decided at this stage and the same requires proper investigation. As such, the petitioner can submit the same before the Investigating Officer and he in turn, shall consider the same while filing report.
11. Further, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh(supra) and in the case ofState of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori (supra 1), this Court is of the view that the matter requires proper investigation and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot be quashed 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11894 of 2023 at this stage.There are no merits in this Criminal Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date:06.06.2024 PT