[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Shaik Ameeruddin vs The State Of Telangana on 1 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4757 of 2026
Date: 01.04.2026
Between:
Shaik Ameeruddin
...petitioner/accused
AND
The State of Telangana, Represented by the Public Prosecutor,
High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and another
...respondents
ORDER
This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.160 of 2021, on the file of the Speical
Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise) at Nizamabad, wherein
the petitioner was arrayed as accused, for the offences punishable
under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC')
and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short
'EC' Act).
2. Heard Mr. Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
3. The specific allegation against the petitioner/accused is that
he has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to
sell the same for wrongful gain and that on 05.10.2020, at about
13.00 hours, the petitioner was found in possession of 11 bags of
PDS rice containing 4 quintals.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without
there being any complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the
rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and
charging the petitioner for prosecution is untenable and improper.
The allegations, even taken at his face value cannot be sustained
against the petitioners. Further, this Court, in Crl.P.Nos.5709 of
2019 and 3349 of 2015, while considering the same situation,
categorically observed that the offences alleged against the
petitioners therein could not be continued and accordingly quashed
the proceedings. The petitioner is also entitled to the same relief
and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per
prosecution, the offences said to have been committed by the
petitioner is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the EC Act and
requested to pass appropriate orders.
6. Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person
contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of
essential commodities is punishable. As per the prosecution, the
petitioner has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply
from the dealer.
7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025
has considered the identical facts and observed that:
"There is no averment indicating that the petitioner in any way
deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied PDS
rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with
the petitioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to
their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contract.
In the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this
Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section
528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the
petitioner is abuse of process of law".
8. The facts and circumstances of the present case also similar
to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit
case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by
applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the
petitioner herein.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings in C.C.No.160 of 2021, on the file of the Speical
Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise) at Nizamabad, against
the petitioner/accused, are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
Date: 01.04.2026
ggd
