\ [ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8942 OF 2026 Between: Shaik Ahmed, S/o. Babu, Aged 48 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 1-4-329121 ' Ramnagar, Nirmal Town and District. Pincode. 504106. ... Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad. 2. Sri. B. Vijaykanth Rao, S/o Late Chalapathi, Occ. Deputy Tahasildar (CS) . Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. Pincode. 503001 ...Respondents/Complai nant Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash 2021 , on the file of the ll Additional the impugned proceedings in c.c.No. I 108 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad,against the Petitioner/Accused l.A. NO: 2OF 2026

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant ll 1 108 of 2021 , on the file of the interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No. Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad, including appearance and attendance of the Petitioner/Accused, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gaje Raghu, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and ofnone appearedforthe RespondentNo.2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8942 of 2026 Date: 18.06.2026. Between: Shaik Ahmed ...Petitioner AND The State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court ofTelangana, at Hyderabad and another ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed by the proceedings 1npetitioner/accused seeking to quash the C.C.No.1l08 of 2021, on the file of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad. 2. Heard Mr.G.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 .

against the petitioner/accused is that3. The specific allegation pOShe has procured rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to 2 sell the sanre for profit and on 14.02.2020, the petitioner was found in possession of 275 plastic bags of PDS rice totalling 117.60 quintals 4. Learned counsel fbr the petitioner would submit that without there being anv complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the nce was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging thc petitioner fbr prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations, even taken at his flace value cannot be sustained against thc petitioner. Further, thrs Court, in Crl.P.No.5709 of 2019, while considering the same situation, categorically obserued that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein could not be continued and accordingly quashed the proceedings. The petitioner is also entrtled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against thc petitioner as per5. The leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submits that prosecution, the ofl'ences said to have been comrnitted by the petitioner is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act') and requested to pass appropriate orders person Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any6.

ofcontravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade essential commodities, is punishabie. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer. Court in Crl.P.No'7227 of 2025j. A Coordinate Bench of this has considered the identical facts and observed that: way "There is no avermenl indicating thdt the petitioner in any d.eceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the benef.ciary entnlste(l the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation ofa lawful direction or contract' In the absence of essential factors, on the face of prrtsecution, this Court finds to be afi.t case to exercise the jurisdiction under Sectittn 528 ofBNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse ofprocess of law". The facts and circumstances of the present case also similar8. to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by case to applylng the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein' Petition is allowed and the g. Accordingly, the Criminal 2021, ot the file of leamed ll proceedings in C.C.No-1108 of 4 Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad, against the petitioner/accused, are hereby quashed Pending misr:ellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed

Sd/.A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSIS NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ S TION OFFICER To, atNizamabad Clas-s 1. The ll Additional Judicial lvlagistrate of First Station Nizamabad District' Police Rural i]"t'O'O 2. The Station Uouse Otticer' High Court for the State of Telangana' at p'o'""uto'' 3. Two CCs to the Public Hyderabad (OUT) CC to Sri Gaie Raghu Advocate [OPUCI + One 5. Two CD CoPies DL/BA Vk HIGH COURT DATED: 1810612026 1 H e S TA t e ( o L) ;? 4 JUI'I 2026 zo.I ORDER * t O6:s c 'AT CRLP.No.8942 of 2026 ALLOWING CRIMINAL PETITION ,teL c9b 5*

\ [ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8942 OF 2026 Between: Shaik Ahmed, S/o. Babu, Aged 48 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 1-4-329121 ' Ramnagar, Nirmal Town and District. Pincode. 504106. ... Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad. 2. Sri. B. Vijaykanth Rao, S/o Late Chalapathi, Occ. Deputy Tahasildar (CS) . Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. Pincode. 503001 ...Respondents/Complai nant Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash 2021 , on the file of the ll Additional the impugned proceedings in c.c.No. I 108 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad,against the Petitioner/Accused l.A. NO: 2OF 2026

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant ll 1 108 of 2021 , on the file of the interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No. Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad, including appearance and attendance of the Petitioner/Accused, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gaje Raghu, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and ofnone appearedforthe RespondentNo.2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8942 of 2026 Date: 18.06.2026. Between: Shaik Ahmed ...Petitioner AND The State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court ofTelangana, at Hyderabad and another ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed by the proceedings 1npetitioner/accused seeking to quash the C.C.No.1l08 of 2021, on the file of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad. 2. Heard Mr.G.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 .

against the petitioner/accused is that3. The specific allegation pOShe has procured rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to 2 sell the sanre for profit and on 14.02.2020, the petitioner was found in possession of 275 plastic bags of PDS rice totalling 117.60 quintals 4. Learned counsel fbr the petitioner would submit that without there being anv complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the nce was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging thc petitioner fbr prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations, even taken at his flace value cannot be sustained against thc petitioner. Further, thrs Court, in Crl.P.No.5709 of 2019, while considering the same situation, categorically obserued that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein could not be continued and accordingly quashed the proceedings. The petitioner is also entrtled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against thc petitioner as per5. The leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submits that prosecution, the ofl'ences said to have been comrnitted by the petitioner is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act') and requested to pass appropriate orders person Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any6.

ofcontravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade essential commodities, is punishabie. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer. Court in Crl.P.No'7227 of 2025j. A Coordinate Bench of this has considered the identical facts and observed that: way "There is no avermenl indicating thdt the petitioner in any d.eceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the benef.ciary entnlste(l the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation ofa lawful direction or contract' In the absence of essential factors, on the face of prrtsecution, this Court finds to be afi.t case to exercise the jurisdiction under Sectittn 528 ofBNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse ofprocess of law". The facts and circumstances of the present case also similar8. to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by case to applylng the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein' Petition is allowed and the g. Accordingly, the Criminal 2021, ot the file of leamed ll proceedings in C.C.No-1108 of 4 Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad, against the petitioner/accused, are hereby quashed Pending misr:ellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed

Sd/.A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSIS NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ S TION OFFICER To, atNizamabad Clas-s 1. The ll Additional Judicial lvlagistrate of First Station Nizamabad District' Police Rural i]"t'O'O 2. The Station Uouse Otticer' High Court for the State of Telangana' at p'o'""uto'' 3. Two CCs to the Public Hyderabad (OUT) CC to Sri Gaie Raghu Advocate [OPUCI + One 5. Two CD CoPies DL/BA Vk HIGH COURT DATED: 1810612026 1 H e S TA t e ( o L) ;? 4 JUI'I 2026 zo.I ORDER * t O6:s c 'AT CRLP.No.8942 of 2026 ALLOWING CRIMINAL PETITION ,teL c9b 5*