Varla Satish Kumar vs The State Of Telangana,
2025 Latest Caselaw 5313 Tel

Telangana High Court

Varla Satish Kumar vs The State Of Telangana, on 4 September, 2025

 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

                  WRIT PETITION No.38161 of 2015

ORDER:

Heard Ms. C.Sunitha Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Home appearing for the respondents.

2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the inaction of the

respondents in delivering the seized rice of 250 Bags, 120 Quintals to

the petitioner in C.C.No.412 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate of the First Class, Parigi, Ranga Reddiy District, as illegal

and arbitrary.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is

engaged in the business of rice and paddy. On 16.06.2005, one

Mr. M.Bichappa, Head Constable of Parigi Police Station, conducted a

Panchanama at the petitioner's premises and seized 250 bags (125

quintals) of rice on the allegation that the rice was PDS rice. A

complaint was also lodged with the Station House Officer, Parigi Police

Station, basing on which an FIR was registered vide FIR No.115 of 2005

under Sections 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). Subsequently,

investigation was conducted by respondent No.2, who filed charge sheet

vide C.C.No.412 of 2006 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Parigi, Ranga Reddy District, and the trial Court, after conducting trial,

acquitted the petitioner vide its judgment dated 14.11.2012.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

seized rice stocks were not produced before the trial Court but kept at

the Mandal Level Stock (MLS) Point, Parigi, and no 6A report was filed

before the Joint Collector. Further, the Head Constable lacked

authority under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, to seize the rice.

Therefore, learned counsel prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents failed

to deliver the seized rice of 250 Bags, 120 Quintals, to the petitioner,

despite the acquittal in C.C.No.412 of 2006 vide judgment dated

14.11.2012.

6. It is to be observed that soon after seizure of the rice, the same

was kept at the MLS point. Therefore, it cannot be said that the

respondent No.2 is still holding custody of the same.

7. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of by granting

liberty to the petitioner to approach a competent Civil Court of Law or

any competent Authority for redressal of his grievances, as may be

offered under law. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

__________________________________________ JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

Note: Issue CC in three (03) days Date: 04.09.2025 mvm