G.Kalyan Reddy vs State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 235 Tel

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

     CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8991 and 9016 OF 2021
COMMON ORDER:
1.

Criminal Petition No.8991 of 2021 is filed to quash the

proceedings against the petitioners/A2 and A3 in

C.C.No.444 of 2021 on the file of Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Utnoor, Adilabad.

2. Criminal Petition No.9016 of 2021 is filed to quash the

proceedings against the petitioners/A2 and A3 in

C.C.No.442 of 2021 on the file of Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Utnoor, Adilabad.

3. Both these Criminal Petitions are filed by the

petitioners/A2 and A3 aggrieved by their implication in CC

Nos.442 and 444 for the offences under Sections 420 r/w

34 of IPC on the basis of fertilizer being found in the

premises, which fertilizer was not in accordance with the

specifications in the Fertilizer (Control) Order (Crl.P.No.9016

of 2021) and also for the reason of finding fertilizer banned

by the State government (Crl.P.No.8991 of 2021).

4. Since the grounds raised in both the petitions are one

and the same, both the petitions are disposed by way of this

Common Order.

5. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for Smt.Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the

petitioners would submit that the police are barred from

investigating into said cases wherein selling of fertilizers, if

found which were not of quality or banned fertilizers, can

only be done under the provisions of violation of Fertilizers

(Control) Orders, 1985 and not under Indian Penal Code

and cannot be prosecuted under Section 420 of IPC. He

relied on the following judgments; i) judgment of this Court

in Criminal Petition No.857 of 2021, dated 05.03.2021; ii)

Ramaola alias Easthar Bhagyavathi and others v. Jacob

Nava Maniraja and others [2013 (1) ALT 87 (D.B) iii)

District and Sessions Judge, Guntur and others v. State

of A.P [2000 (1) ALT (CRI.) 103 (D.B); iv) Farmers Service

Co-operative Society, Kothapally Medak and others v.

State Government of Andhra Pradesh [2006 (2) ALT (CRI.)

359 (S.B) and argued that the prosecution cannot be held to

be in accordance with law. For the said reasons, the charge

sheets have to be quashed.

6. On the other hand, Sri S.Sudershan, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor opposing the applications for

quashing would submit that the petitioners were indulging

in selling the fertilizers which do not have standards of

quality prescribed and in the other case, banned fertilizers.

The said acts of the petitioners would amount to an offence

of cheating farmers, for which reason, both the applications

should be dismissed.

7. Having perused the record, in both the cases, fertilizers

were in fact found in the premises of one of the petitioners.

Manufacturer of the said fertilizers, wholesaler and retailer

are all made as accused.

8. The Forensic Science Laboratory report indicates that

the fertilizer was not of standard quality in one case. In the

other case, the said fertilizer was banned by the State

Government.

9. The police, though conducted seizures in the said

premises and seized fertilizers and also sent them for

examination, however, failed to examine any purchaser of

the said fertilizer or any farmer, who had purchased the

said fertilizer resulting in loss to his crop. There is no

necessity to cause wrongful loss by using fertilizer, however,

mere stocking of fertilizer cannot be held to be amounting to

an offence of cheating punishable under section 420 of IPC.

10. To attract an offence of cheating punishable under

Section 420 of IPC, it is necessary that the prosecution

proves the following; i) that there was deliberate

misstatement made; ii) believing said misstatement person

should have been induced; iii) such induced persons should

have parted with property causing wrongful loss.

11. Unless the three ingredients are proved, the question

of any act falling within the four corners of cheating

punishable under Section 420 of IPC does not arise.

12. As already discussed, the fertilizer was found in the

premises and the prosecution has not made any effort to

examine any person who had in fact purchased the said

fertilizer on the basis of any false claims made by these

petitioners. In the absence of any such proof of any false

claims being made and the consequent fraudulent

inducement being made out, under the facts and

circumstances of this case, the prosecution for the offence

under Section 420 of IPC, cannot be maintained.

13. However, this order will not preclude the authorities to

prosecute the petitioners for the offences of violating the

conditions of procurement of fertilizers, which was banned

or the violations of any Fertilizers (Control) Orders, 1985.

14. In the result, proceedings against the petitioners/A2

and A3 in C.C.No.444 of 2021 and 442 of 2021 on the file of

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Utnoor, Adilabad, are

hereby quashed.

15. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed.

However option is left open to the authorities concerned to

prosecute the petitioners for the offences under any special

enactments or other offences apart from Section 420 of IPC.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date:18.01.2023 kvs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Crl.P.Nos.8991 and 9016 of 2021

Dated:18.01.2023

kvs