Telangana High Court

Syed Ahmedulhussaini vs The State Of Telangana on 20 August, 2024

        THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
            CRIMINAL PETITION No.8291 OF 2023


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash

the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in

C.C.No.251 of 2019 pending on the file of the Special Judicial

First Class Magistrate, Nampally, registered for the offence

punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act,

1955 (for short 'EC Act').

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent

No.2/de facto complaint lodged a complaint stating that he

works as Assistant Civil Supply Officer, Circle-III, Charminar,

Hyderabad, and on receipt of credible information from the

officials of Enforcement Team (1) Hyderabad, regarding the

illegal storage of LPG Commercial Cylinders (BPC) at Basti

Nabi-E-Kareem Colony, Eidgah, Miralaram Tank, Tadbun,

Hyderabad, he along with the Enforcement Staff, proceeded to

the place as mentioned above and found 55 empty BPC

Commercial Cylinders and 113 full cylinders i.e., total 168

SKS,J Crl.P.No.8291 OF 2023

cylinders. When two persons by names Abdul Kareem and Syed

Khader Mohiuddin Quadri were summoned and questioned

about the illegal storage of LPG commercial cylinders (BPC) they

failed to give any satisfactory reply and also failed to produce

any valid license or permit to carry out the said business and

the same proves that the cylinders were stored illegally for their

personal gains.

3. On receipt of the said complaint, the Police investigated

the matter and on completion of due investigation, a charge

sheet was filed against the petitioner, whereunder, he was

arrayed as accused No.3. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal

Petition is filed.

4. Heard Sri K.Rajashekar, learned counsel for petitioner,

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.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that even if the

allegations leveled against the petitioner are taken in its

entirety, no offence can be constituted against the petitioner

under Section 7 of the EC Act. He contended that the averments

SKS,J Crl.P.No.8291 OF 2023

of the complaint and the charge sheet, do not indicate any

factual construction so as to make out an offence against the

petitioner. He asserted that Section 7 of EC Act reads that

whoever supplies or sells essential commodities are liable for the

said offence but as a matter of fact, it is to be noted that during

seizure panchanama, neither the petitioner was present nor was

he involved with the firm in any capacity. He lamented that the

specific overt act attributed against the petitioner is that he is

partner of the firm HBS Services under which accused Nos.1

and 2 were doing business as partners but no such partnership

details were furnished and that there is no such firm existing.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner incessantly contended

that the name of petitioner got figured in 161 statements on the

basis of an alleged confession of the co accused and the same is

inadmissible in evidence. Further, the name of the petitioner

was not mentioned in the FIR and the complainant requested

action against only two persons i.e., accused Nos.1 and 2 in

whose possession the said cylinders were said to have been

seized. He averred that petitioner was neither present during

raid, nor has participated at the scene of offence and that he is

implicated in the case only on the ground of confession of one of

SKS,J Crl.P.No.8291 OF 2023

the co accused. Therefore, prayed this Court to quash the

proceedings against the petitioner.

7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor, submitted that though petitioner was not present

when the cylinders that were stored illegally were seized, it is to

be noted that the accused Nos.1 and 2 in whose presence the

raid took place, have specifically confessed about the

involvement of petitioner/accused No.3. Therefore, while

asserting that the matter requires trial, prayed this Court to

dismiss the criminal petition.

8. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going

through the material placed on record, it is noted that the

respondent No.2 who works as Assistant Civil Supply Officer

lodged a complaint stating that accused Nos.1 and 2 have

illegally stored 55 empty BPC Commercial Cylinders and 113

full cylinders i.e., total 168 cylinders. Further, there is no valid

license with them or any permit to carry on with said business.

9. Perusal of charge sheet would reveal that during the

course of investigation, the Police recorded the statements of

witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., whereunder, the LW.1

SKS,J Crl.P.No.8291 OF 2023

stated that the accused Nos.1 and 2 revealed about their fellow

partners in the business and stated their respective shares in

the partnership business. On perusing the Section 161

statement of LW.1 it is seen that the share of petitioner/accused

No.3 is mentioned as 51% and that the cylinders that were

seized were supplied to them by M/s.Medchal Modern Gas,

Bharat Gas Distributors, for the purpose of storing them and

selling them at a higher price to the needy people.

10. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that to quash the

proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see

whether the averments in the complaint prima facie shows that

it constitute the offence against the accused persons, as alleged

by the Police. That being so, it is imperative to note the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya

Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is

held as follows:

"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

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

SKS,J Crl.P.No.8291 OF 2023

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."