Telangana High Court
Md. Shahid vs The State Of Telangana on 20 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CRIMINAL PETITON No.14089 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1
to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in CC No.1257
of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at
Dharmapuri, for the offences under Sections 420 IPC and Section 7
of the Essential Commodities Act (for short 'EC Act').
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 Endapalli Cross Road, the
Sub-Inspector of Police, Velgatoor along with two constables rushed
to the scene of offence and found one TATA Ace Mega Auto bearing
No.TS 15 UB 2879. They stopped that vehicle and on checking they
found PDS rice bags in the said vehicle. Immediately they secured
the presence of two panchaas and in their presence, interrogated the
accused. The accused confessed that they are working as driver and
cleaner of the said TATA Ace vehicle of the accused No.3 and on
the instructions of accused No.3, they used to collect PDS rice from
ETD,J
accused No.4, who is a supplier of PDS rice and transporting it to
accused No.3 in the said vehicle. It is further stated that the accused
does not possess any relevant documents for the possession of PDS
rice. A total quantity of 27.00 quintals of PDS rice was seized from
the said vehicle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
petitioners are falsely implicated in the case and that without there
being any complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the rice was
procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the
petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper. He further
submitted that even according to the complaint, the alleged offences
under Sections 420 IPC and 7 of the EC Act do not attract against
the petitioners as they have not cheated either the government or
the public. Therefore, he submitted that none of the alleged offences
attract against the petitioners herein and prayed to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that as per
prosecution, the offence said to have been committed by the
petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 and that they have illegally transported the
ETD,J
rice meant for public distribution and therefore, they are not entitled
to any relief.
6. Perused the record.
7. The petitioners are facing the allegations under Section
420 IPC and Section 7 of the EC Act. The relevant Sections of law
are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:
Section 420 IPC:
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
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 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
than three months but which may extend to
seven years and shall also be liable to fine:
ETD,J
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
special reason for awarding a sentence of imprisonment for a term
of less than three months, or six months, as the case may be.
ETD,J
(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."
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is
that the petitioners 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 the PDS rice and thus failed to answer the reason for
possession of the same when questioned by the police. The PDS
rice is meant for catering to the needs of the 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.
9. The recitals of the charge sheet point out prima facie case
against the petitioners herein for the offences under Sections 420
IPC and 7 of the EC Act. The truth or otherwise of the allegations are
the subject matter of trial. The matter is pending for trial before the
ETD,J
trial court. Hence, it is deemed appropriate to dispense with the
attendance of the petitioners before the trial court.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of
dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial
court, provided they are represented by a counsel on every date of
hearing before the trail court and they shall appear before the trial
court as and when their presence is required during the course of
trial.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
November 20, 2025
KTL
