[ 3303 ] .I lt IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY rWO THOUSNND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO 0F 2026 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10261 l Between: Lays @ Mohammad S/o Ahammad Subhani Haq @ Subhani Abdul Mohammed H No' 1-372 and H No occ Business'.R/o 5;';;'; Age llayaz, Mohammad District Vikarabad Mandal' 1-203, lndragunj Main n"'ol ["i"ig"i io*" 'no 509336 ...Petitioner/Accused AND I The State of Telangana, Rep by the Public Prosecutor' High Court' at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana' 2 Ravinder Rathod, slo. uari inan"Jar, Age. 48-years, occ. DT(CS) Kodangal' Town and District, Telangana State' iit-.'vl["rru"o ...ResPondents in the stated circumstances in.the petition under section 52g of BNSS praying thal to pleased Court mav be Hioh the of Grounds Memorandum of the Principal Judicial "ibi*i*r"piitiJn' on tnJtite ,. Cb"frf"."'iSS'iiZOZ| ouash the proceedings FitJ Crr"i,t xooanjar in so far as petitioner/Accused' ilt:1li;; I,A. NO:2 oF 2026

in the stated circumstances in.the petition under section 52g of BNSS praying that to pleased court mav be Hion tne Grounds of of Memorandum No 159 in cc "ibirii"r'piiii5n, *'e petitioier/Accused p'";;";i;;;';g'insi further of all stav orant for Kodangal at First class Magistrate piii"'p"il'ii"iai of the file on'tre Io2t p"^Oi"g disposal of the main criminal Petition' of Grounds Memorandum perusing the upon hearing' for on coming Petition for This Advocate G Basappa, sri arglm..ents-of petition n"*i.riir,t and ,p"" criminal of Public Additional learned tTeeramalla' R"; iil;;;;;" and sri Petitioner the piot"crto, on behalf of the Respondents' The Court made the following: ORDER IN'THE IIIGH COLR'I'FOR T-TII] S'IA]'E, OF TELANGANA A'T IIYDT]RAI}AT) TIIE TIONOTiRAI]I,T] SRI JIISTICI.] J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAt- PE-I-I1'lON No.l 0261 of 2026 Date: 06.07.2026. Betrveen Mohammed Abdul tlaq Subhani @ Subhani Aharrmad Petitioner A\I) -l -l'elangana, l'rc State of nntl enotlrcr Rcspondents oRt)t.R 'Ihis Crirninal Pctition has been filed by the pe titioncrr accu sed secking Lo cluash the procecdings in C.C.No. I59 of 202 l, on the fllc of lcarncd t)rincipal Judicial N,Iagistrate First Class at Kodangal. 2 Heard Mr.G.flasappa, learnecl counsel tor the pctitioner and Mr.Jithendc.r Rao Vcerantalla. lcarned AddiLional public Proseculor fbr respor-rde nts

3. 'l'he specilic allegation againsr the pct it ioneri acc used is that hc has procLrrcd [rI)S ricc lionr Lhc bcneflciaries at che.aper rate to 2 petitionel rvas fbund anc{ on I I II l0l0' thcscll thc sarnc lbl pro{lt in possession ol30 quintals ol PDS counsel fbl thc pctiLionct rvou ld submit that without4. [,earned there being any complaint liorn auv bcncticiary' allcging that the a criminal intent and or with flce was procure<J decePtivelY IS untenable and imProPer charging the petitioner tbr prosecuttorl lhc allegations. cvctl takctr at his Iacc valr'tc cantlol he sustaincd (.ourt' in Crl P No 5709 oi against the petitioner' I.urthcr' this e rtegorically' observed 2019. rvhilc colrsiclerirrg thc sattrc ti111;11itrll' that the ofl-ences alleged against the pctitioners therein could not be thc proccedings lhe pctitionet' continued and accordingly cltrashcd to cluash the is also entitlcd [o the satrc rclicI and hcncc prayed procced ings ap.ainst [he nctitioncr' that as per 'l he learned Additional I)ublic I'rosccutor sr-rbtl-tits 5 corrrrrlitted b1' the to Itar c bcctr pr()sccutioll. tht' ollenccs saicl trssential petitioner is chcating and violation o1' Scction 7 ol'thc Collmodities Act, 1955 (lbr shorr.t:C Act.)and rcquestcd to pass approPriatc orders. 6.Section7o1-thel:CActcotltettlplal.ethatan]"persor1 ol distribution and trade prodr-rctior-r' sr'rppl1' contravene:s\ itll the a

essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has procured PDS rice {iom the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer. 7 . A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr1.P.No.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: "There is no ayerment indicating that the petitioner tn any wey deceptively induced the benefi.ciaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchused by them wilh the petitioner ancl they dishonestly misqppropriated or conyerted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contrqct. In the absence of essential factors, on the face of proseuttion, this Court.finds it to be afit cuse to exercise the jurisrliction under Section 528 ofBNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance ol proceedings qgainst the petitio,rcr is abuse ofprocess 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 bV applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allc,wed and the proceedings in C.C.No.159 of 2021, on the file of leamed Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class at Kodangal, against the petitioner/accused, are hereby quashed 4 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed iBt'tr'Ii'i"AEL?J+fiXX ,/TRUE COPY/' 6 I SECTION OFFICER

To, First Class at Kodangal' 1. The Principal Judicial Magrstrate of First class at Kodansar 2. +ii: Jr;#iMrsistrate " ' +ii:;;;ffi H;-'1e1i*:{."jfl :?illr"*"1Y5:',"?,X'"T"J"'1"'"0'o 4 Two CCs to the Public Pr to sri G' Basappa' Advocate toPUCl 5 8H1" 6 Two CD CoPies GNK'KA (9- \, ll HIGH COURT DATED: 06107t2O26 .I S TATE 1 k 10 JUL2U6 o I r) -4, ORDER \ r.C CRLP.No.10261 ot 2026 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ( ")a oo \c

[ 3303 ] .I lt IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY rWO THOUSNND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO 0F 2026 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10261 l Between: Lays @ Mohammad S/o Ahammad Subhani Haq @ Subhani Abdul Mohammed H No' 1-372 and H No occ Business'.R/o 5;';;'; Age llayaz, Mohammad District Vikarabad Mandal' 1-203, lndragunj Main n"'ol ["i"ig"i io*" 'no 509336 ...Petitioner/Accused AND I The State of Telangana, Rep by the Public Prosecutor' High Court' at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana' 2 Ravinder Rathod, slo. uari inan"Jar, Age. 48-years, occ. DT(CS) Kodangal' Town and District, Telangana State' iit-.'vl["rru"o ...ResPondents in the stated circumstances in.the petition under section 52g of BNSS praying thal to pleased Court mav be Hioh the of Grounds Memorandum of the Principal Judicial "ibi*i*r"piitiJn' on tnJtite ,. Cb"frf"."'iSS'iiZOZ| ouash the proceedings FitJ Crr"i,t xooanjar in so far as petitioner/Accused' ilt:1li;; I,A. NO:2 oF 2026

in the stated circumstances in.the petition under section 52g of BNSS praying that to pleased court mav be Hion tne Grounds of of Memorandum No 159 in cc "ibirii"r'piiii5n, *'e petitioier/Accused p'";;";i;;;';g'insi further of all stav orant for Kodangal at First class Magistrate piii"'p"il'ii"iai of the file on'tre Io2t p"^Oi"g disposal of the main criminal Petition' of Grounds Memorandum perusing the upon hearing' for on coming Petition for This Advocate G Basappa, sri arglm..ents-of petition n"*i.riir,t and ,p"" criminal of Public Additional learned tTeeramalla' R"; iil;;;;;" and sri Petitioner the piot"crto, on behalf of the Respondents' The Court made the following: ORDER IN'THE IIIGH COLR'I'FOR T-TII] S'IA]'E, OF TELANGANA A'T IIYDT]RAI}AT) TIIE TIONOTiRAI]I,T] SRI JIISTICI.] J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAt- PE-I-I1'lON No.l 0261 of 2026 Date: 06.07.2026. Betrveen Mohammed Abdul tlaq Subhani @ Subhani Aharrmad Petitioner A\I) -l -l'elangana, l'rc State of nntl enotlrcr Rcspondents oRt)t.R 'Ihis Crirninal Pctition has been filed by the pe titioncrr accu sed secking Lo cluash the procecdings in C.C.No. I59 of 202 l, on the fllc of lcarncd t)rincipal Judicial N,Iagistrate First Class at Kodangal. 2 Heard Mr.G.flasappa, learnecl counsel tor the pctitioner and Mr.Jithendc.r Rao Vcerantalla. lcarned AddiLional public Proseculor fbr respor-rde nts

3. 'l'he specilic allegation againsr the pct it ioneri acc used is that hc has procLrrcd [rI)S ricc lionr Lhc bcneflciaries at che.aper rate to 2 petitionel rvas fbund anc{ on I I II l0l0' thcscll thc sarnc lbl pro{lt in possession ol30 quintals ol PDS counsel fbl thc pctiLionct rvou ld submit that without4. [,earned there being any complaint liorn auv bcncticiary' allcging that the a criminal intent and or with flce was procure<J decePtivelY IS untenable and imProPer charging the petitioner tbr prosecuttorl lhc allegations. cvctl takctr at his Iacc valr'tc cantlol he sustaincd (.ourt' in Crl P No 5709 oi against the petitioner' I.urthcr' this e rtegorically' observed 2019. rvhilc colrsiclerirrg thc sattrc ti111;11itrll' that the ofl-ences alleged against the pctitioners therein could not be thc proccedings lhe pctitionet' continued and accordingly cltrashcd to cluash the is also entitlcd [o the satrc rclicI and hcncc prayed procced ings ap.ainst [he nctitioncr' that as per 'l he learned Additional I)ublic I'rosccutor sr-rbtl-tits 5 corrrrrlitted b1' the to Itar c bcctr pr()sccutioll. tht' ollenccs saicl trssential petitioner is chcating and violation o1' Scction 7 ol'thc Collmodities Act, 1955 (lbr shorr.t:C Act.)and rcquestcd to pass approPriatc orders. 6.Section7o1-thel:CActcotltettlplal.ethatan]"persor1 ol distribution and trade prodr-rctior-r' sr'rppl1' contravene:s\ itll the a

essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has procured PDS rice {iom the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer. 7 . A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr1.P.No.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: "There is no ayerment indicating that the petitioner tn any wey deceptively induced the benefi.ciaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchused by them wilh the petitioner ancl they dishonestly misqppropriated or conyerted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contrqct. In the absence of essential factors, on the face of proseuttion, this Court.finds it to be afit cuse to exercise the jurisrliction under Section 528 ofBNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance ol proceedings qgainst the petitio,rcr is abuse ofprocess 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 bV applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allc,wed and the proceedings in C.C.No.159 of 2021, on the file of leamed Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class at Kodangal, against the petitioner/accused, are hereby quashed 4 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed iBt'tr'Ii'i"AEL?J+fiXX ,/TRUE COPY/' 6 I SECTION OFFICER

To, First Class at Kodangal' 1. The Principal Judicial Magrstrate of First class at Kodansar 2. +ii: Jr;#iMrsistrate " ' +ii:;;;ffi H;-'1e1i*:{."jfl :?illr"*"1Y5:',"?,X'"T"J"'1"'"0'o 4 Two CCs to the Public Pr to sri G' Basappa' Advocate toPUCl 5 8H1" 6 Two CD CoPies GNK'KA (9- \, ll HIGH COURT DATED: 06107t2O26 .I S TATE 1 k 10 JUL2U6 o I r) -4, ORDER \ r.C CRLP.No.10261 ot 2026 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ( ")a oo \c