[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Bheema Bala Krishna vs The State Of Telangana on 25 March, 2026
Author: N. Tukaramji
Bench: N. Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.11710 and 11675 of 2024
Between:
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11710 of 2024:
Bheema Bala Krishna
... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana
rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of
Telangana at Hyderabad Representing Police Station Kothakota
of Wanaparthy District and another.
... Respondents.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11675 of 2024:
Janumpally Sudharshan
... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana
Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of
Telangana at Hyderabad Representing Police Station Kothakota
of Wanaparthy District and another.
... Respondents.
Date of Judgment pronounced on : 25-03-2026
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
May be allowed to see the judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes
to Law Reporters/Journals:
3. Whether His Lordships wishes to see the fair copy : Yes
Of the Judgment?
_______________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.11710 and 11675 of 2024
% 25-03-2026
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11710 of 2024:
# Bheema Bala Krishna
.... Petitioner
AND
$ The State of Telangana
rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana at
Hyderabad Representing Police Station Kothakota of Wanaparthy
District and another.
..... Respondents.
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. M. Damodar Reddy, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner
^ Counsel for the respondents : Mr. M. Vivekanand Reddy, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing for respondent No. 1.
? Cases referred
1. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
2. (2002) 9 SCC 90
3. (2012) 10 SCC 303
3
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.11710 and 11675 of 2024
DATE: 25.03.2026
Between :
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11710 of 2024:
Bheema Bala Krishna
... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana
rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of
Telangana at Hyderabad Representing Police Station Kothakota
of Wanaparthy District and another.
... Respondents.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11675 of 2024:
Janumpally Sudharshan
... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana
Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of
Telangana at Hyderabad Representing Police Station Kothakota
of Wanaparthy District and another.
... Respondents.
4
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issues involved in these criminal petitions are
analogous, both petitions were heard together and are being disposed
of by this common order.
2. The petitioners, who are rice mill owners, are arrayed as
accused in Crime Nos. 88 and 89 of 2018, registered for the alleged
offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC), read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for
short, "the EC Act").
3. Heard Mr. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners,
and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent
No.1.
4.1. CRL.P. No.11710 of 2024 : The gravamen of the allegations is
that the petitioner had allegedly stored 4,495 bags of Custom Milled
Rice (CMR) paddy and 410 bags of CMR paddy in excess of the stock
reflected in the statutory records maintained by him.
4.2. Pursuant to the said allegations, the District Collector (Civil
Supplies), Wanaparthy, upon conducting a detailed enquiry under
Section 6-A of the EC Act, passed an order dated 12.10.2018 in File
No. CS/36/2018. The Collector categorically held that the seized stock
constituted valid CMR paddy intended for milling and subsequent
supply to the Government and that no contravention of the provisions
of the EC Act or the Control Orders was made out. Consequently, the
Collector directed redelivery of the seized stock to the petitioner. In
compliance with the said order, the petitioner milled the paddy and duly
supplied the resultant CMR rice to the Government for the Kharif
Marketing Season 2018-2019, thereby fulfilling all contractual and
statutory obligations under the procurement scheme.
4.3. However, notwithstanding the clear and categorical findings
recorded by the competent authority exonerating the petitioner, the
police proceeded to file a charge sheet, which culminated in C.C. No.
616 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Atmakur.
4.4. The petitioner, therefore, contends that continuation of criminal
proceedings, despite exoneration in quasi-judicial proceedings under
the EC Act, is wholly unsustainable in law and amounts to abuse of
process of Court. Accordingly, the petitioner seeks quashment of the
said proceedings.
5.1. CRL.P. No.11675 of 2024 : In this case, the allegation is that the
petitioner had stored 3,640 quintals of paddy in excess of the stock
recorded in his accounts. The stock was seized, and the matter was
referred to the District Collector (Civil Supplies), Wanaparthy, for
initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the EC Act.
5.2. Upon consideration of the material on record, the District
Collector, by order dated 12.10.2018, recorded a categorical finding
that no contravention or offence had been committed by the petitioner
and directed redelivery of the seized paddy.
5.3. Subsequently, the petitioner milled the paddy and supplied the
CMR rice to the Government for the Kharif Marketing Season 2018-
2019 under proper acknowledgment, thereby demonstrating full
compliance with the Government procurement scheme. However,
disregarding the findings of the competent authority, the police
proceeded to file a charge sheet, which resulted in C.C. No. 618 of
2022.
6. Submissions on behalf of Petitioners: Learned counsel for
the petitioners contends that the continuation of criminal proceedings is
arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the material on record. It is submitted
that the very foundation of the prosecution stands vitiated in view of the
categorical findings of the District Collector under Section 6-A of the
EC Act. The redelivery of the seized stock itself is a clear
acknowledgment by the competent authority that no violation had
occurred. The petitioners, having milled the paddy and supplied the
resultant CMR rice to the Government, have fully complied with
statutory and contractual obligations. In the absence of any
contravention, the essential ingredients of the offences under Section 7
of the EC Act and Section 420 IPC are not made out. It is further
contended that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse
of process of law, warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
as laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335.
7. Submissions of the Prosecution : Per contra, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the inspections conducted by
the Civil Supplies authorities on 26.05.2018 at the premises of the
petitioners revealed discrepancies, including missing and allegedly
diverted CMR paddy. Based on the panchanama and mediator's
report, Crime Nos. 88 and 89 of 2018 were registered. After
investigation, charge sheets were filed for offences under Section 420
IPC and Section 7(1) of the EC Act, and the cases are now pending
trial as C.C. Nos. 616 and 618 of 2022. The findings of the Collector
pertain to a separate inspection dated 29.05.2018 and do not negate
the material collected during investigation. The trial Court has already
taken cognizance and dismissed discharge petitions filed by the
petitioners, having found a prima facie case. It is therefore contended
that the veracity of the allegations must be tested during trial and that
interference at this stage would be unwarranted.
8. This Court has perused the material available on record and
considered the rival submissions.
9. Analysis and conclusion : A crucial question that arises
for consideration is whether criminal prosecution can be sustained
when the competent authority under Section 6-A of the EC Act has
already recorded a categorical finding that no contravention has
occurred?
10. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that proceedings under
Section 6-A of the EC Act are quasi-judicial in nature, wherein the
District Collector is vested with the authority to adjudicate upon the
legality of seizure and alleged contraventions of control orders. In the
present cases, the District Collector, after due enquiry, has
unequivocally held that the seized stock was lawful CMR paddy
intended for Government supply; and no violation of the EC Act or
Control Orders was committed by the petitioners. Such findings,
rendered by a competent statutory authority, carry significant
evidentiary value and cannot be lightly disregarded. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. K.A. Kunchindammed, (2002)
9 SCC 90, held that where confiscation proceedings culminate in a
finding that no contravention has occurred, the substratum of the
criminal prosecution may be seriously undermined. Similarly, in Bhajan
Lal (supra) it was held that criminal proceedings lacking foundational
facts or instituted with mala fide intent are liable to be quashed to
prevent abuse of process.
11. Further, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303,
the Apex Court emphasized that criminal law cannot be set in motion
where the essential ingredients of the offence are absent. In the Instant
case the competent authority has exonerated the petitioners; the
seized stock was ordered to be returned; the petitioners complied with
the procurement scheme by supplying CMR rice to the Government;
and the charge sheet appears to have been filed without due
consideration of these crucial findings. In this position, permitting
parallel criminal proceedings to continue on identical facts, despite a
clear adjudication by the competent authority, would result in
contradictory findings and amount to abuse of process of law.
12. In view of the categorical findings recorded by the District
Collector under Section 6-A of the EC Act exonerating the petitioners,
and in the absence of any independent material to sustain the
allegations, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of
criminal proceedings is unsustainable.
13. In effect, the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 616 of 2022; and
C.C. No. 618 of 2022 are hereby quashed. Accordingly, both the
Criminal Petitions are allowed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 25.03.2026
MRKR
