Smt. Rehana Begum vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 2051 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2051 Tel
Judgement Date : 6 June, 2024

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

SKS,J

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.

SKS,J

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

SKS,J

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

2023 SCC OnLine SC 379

SKS,J

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."