Telangana High Court

Sohail Mohammad Alias Mohammad ... vs The State Of Telangana on 20 November, 2025

      THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

              CRIMINAL PETITON No.13881 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1

to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in FIR No.239 of

2025 on the file of Makloor Police Station, Nizamabad District,

registered for the offences under Sections 318(4) and 111 of BNS, 7

of the Essential Commodities Act (for short EC Act') and Section

17(e) of the Telangana State Public Distribution System (Control)

Order, 2016 (for short 'Control Order').

2. Heard Sri G. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for the respondents.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on reliable information

about illegal transportation of PDS rice at Mamidipally village shivar,

the SHO, Makloor rushed to the scene of offence and found to be

correct. On his requisition, the Deputy Tahsildar visited the Vaibhav

Venkateswara Agro Industries, Mamidipally, along with panchas and

conducted confession cum seizure panchanama and perused

the crime vehicle bearing No.TS16 UC 6920 loaded with PDS rice.

The driver of the crime vehicle confessed that the PDS rice belongs

ETD,J

to one Madhanam Yellaiah and Sanjeev, and as per their orders, the

accused person Mohammad Sohail unloaded the PDS rice in the

Vaibhav Venkateshwara Rice Mills, Mamidipally village shivar. It is

further disclosed that the accused does not possess any relevant

documents for the possession of PDS rice. A total quantity of 385.20

quintals of PDS rice was seized from the said vehicle.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

PDS rice was being transported from the rice mill, but there is no

criminal intention in the said transportation of PDS rice. He further

submitted that even according to the complaint, the alleged offences

under Sections 318(4) of BNS and 7 of the EC Act do not attract

against the petitioners as they have not cheated either the

government or the public and that 17(e) of the Control Order does

not attract as the petitioners have not purchased the rice supplied

from the Public Distribution System and Section 111 of BNS pertains

to organized crime and when the Sections 318(4) BNS and Section 7

of EC Act does not apply, then the question of applying Section 111

of BNS does not arise. Therefore, he submitted that none of the

alleged offences attract against the petitioners herein and prayed to

quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

ETD,J

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the said

submission stating that the offence under Section 111 squarely

attracts the petitioners as they have illegally transported the rice

meant for public distribution and therefore, they are not entitled to

any relief.

6. Perused the record.

7. The petitioners are facing allegations under Sections 318(4)

and 111 of BNS and Section 7 of the EC Act and 17(e) of the Control

Order. The said sections are extracted hereunder for the sake of

reference.

Section 318(4) of BNS:

"318. Cheating:

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

Section 111 of BNS:

"111. Organized Crime:

(1) Any continuing unlawful activity including kidnapping, robbery, vehicle theft, extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, economic offences, cyber-crimes having severe consequences, trafficking in people, drugs, illicit goods or

ETD,J

services and weapons, human trafficking racket for prostitution or ransom by the effort of groups of individuals acting in concert, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence, threat of violence, intimidation, coercion, corruption or related activities or other unlawful means to obtain direct or indirect, material benefit including a financial benefit, shall constitute organised crime. (2) Whoever, attempts to commit or commits an offence of organised crime shall,

(i) if such offence has resulted in the death of any person, be punishable with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees ten lakhs;

(ii) in any other case, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs.

(3) Whoever, conspires or organises the commission of an organised crime, or assists, facilitates or otherwise engages in any act preparatory to an organised crime, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs. (4) Any person who is a member of an organised crime syndicate shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs. (5) Whoever, intentionally harbours or conceals or attempts to harbour or conceal any person who has committed the offence of an organised crime or any member of an organised crime syndicate or believes that his act will encourage or assist the doing of such crime shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be

ETD,J

less than three years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs;

Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to any case in which the harbour or concealment is by the spouse of the offender.

(6) Whoever, holds any property derived, or obtained from the commission of an organised crime or proceeds of any organised crime or which has been acquired through the organised crime syndicate funds shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees two lakhs.

(7) If any person on behalf of a member of an organised crime syndicate is, or at any time has been in possession of movable or immovable property which he cannot satisfactorily account for, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to imprisonment for ten years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees one lakh and such property shall also be liable for attachment and forfeiture."

Section 7 of the EC Act:

"7. Penalties: --

(1) If any person contravenes any order made under section 3,-- (a ) he shall be punishable,--

(i) in the case of an order made with reference to clause (h) or clause (i) of sub-section (2) of that section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine, and

(ii) in the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less

ETD,J

than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine:

Provided that the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months;

(b) any property in respect of which the order has been contravened shall be forfeited to the Government;

(c) any package, covering or receptacle in which the property is found and any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying the commodity shall, if the court so orders, be forfeited to the Government.

(2) If any person to whom a direction is given under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of section 3 fails to comply with the direction, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine:

Provided that the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months.

(2A) If any person convicted of an offence under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2) is again convicted of an offence under the same provision, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for the second and for every subsequent offence for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine:

Provided that the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.

(2B) For the purposes of sub-sections (1), (2) and (2A), the fact that an offence under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2) has caused no substantial harm to the general public or to any individual, shall be an adequate and

ETD,J

special reason for awarding a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months, or six months, as the case may be.

(3) Where a person having been convicted of an offence under sub-section (1) is again convicted of an offence under that sub-

section for contravention of an order in respect of an essential commodity, the court by which such person is convicted shall, in addition to any penalty which may be imposed on him under that sub-section, by order, direct that that person shall not carry on any business in that essential commodity for such period, not being less than six months, as may be specified by the court in the order."

Order 17(e) of the Control Order:

"17. Penalties for possessing cards, making false entries or diverting stock:

(a) xxxx

(b) xxxx

(c) xxxx

(e) If any person is found to have purchased the rice supplied through PDS either from the card holder or the F.P. Shop dealer or any other source, he shall be liable for criminal action and imposition of penalty as may be fixed by the Competent authority."

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is

that they have not cheated either the government or the public and

that they have not purchased the rice supplied for the public

distribution system. But, there is no material on record to show that

from whom and in what manner could the petitioners collect such a

huge quantity of PDS rice and thus failed to answer for possession

of the same when questioned by the police. The PDS rice is meant

ETD,J

for catering to the needs of people below poverty line for distributing

the same under Public Distribution System. Illegal procurement or

sale of the said rice is an offence under Section 7 of the EC Act.

The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that