[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 14369 OF 2026 Between: Konda Laxman, S/o. Late Lachaiah, Age. 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 5-4-214, Vanjari Wada, Jagtial Proper and District. ...Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND 1. The State of Telangana, through S.H.O., P.S Jagtial Rural, Jagtial District, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. . .. Respondent Naib Tahasildar (Civil Supply), 2 Kukatla Umapathi, S/o. Rama Chandram, Occ. R/o. Tank Road, Sulthanabad. ...RespondenUDefacto Complainant 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 the charge sheet in C.C.No.1815 ol 2025, on the file of Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jagtial, as against the petitioner/ Accused No. 2. l.A. NO: 1OF 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 stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner/Accused No. 2 in C.C.No.1815 ot 2025, on the file of Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jagtial This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of arguments of Mr' K.Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the Venumadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE TIIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OT TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICT] J.SREI]NIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.14369 of2026 CN R N o.HBH C010602932026 Date: 08.09.2026. Between: Konda Laxman Petitioner AND '[he State of 1 elangana, and another ...Respondents ORDER l-his Criminal Petition has been filed by the 1npetitioner/accused No.2 seeking to quash the ltroceedings C.C .No.18l-5 of 2025. on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Jagtial. 2. Heard Mr.K.\,enumadhav, learned counsel fo: the petitioner and ,Vr.Jithender Itao Veeramalla, learned Additional public Prosecutor tbr respondent No.l

3 Thc spccr frc allesation against the petitioneri accused No.2 is that 6e has procurerl I)DS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate 2 to sell the same for proht and on 23.06.2025, the petitioner was found in possession of 182.20 quintals of PDS rice. for the petitioner would submit that without4. Leamed counsel there being aly complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the criminal intent andrice was procured deceptively or with a charging the petitioner for prosecution is untenable and improper' The allegations, even taken at his face value cannot be sustained Crl'P'No'5'709 ofagainst the petitioner. Further, this Court, in 2019, 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 peti tioner. leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per 5. The the prosecution, the offences said to have been committed by petitioner is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act') and requested to pass appropriate orders. contemplate that any person 6. Section 7 of the EC Act contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of 3

essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has procured PDS rice from the bcneficiaries after supply from the dealer (loordinate Bench of this Cou( in Crl.P.No.7227 of 20257 A has consiclered the idcntical facts and observed thal: "Therc is no uverment indiceling that the petitioner in any wuy clcceptivcll itdutecl the beneficiaries to port with the supplied PDS rice or tht beneJiciun entn6te(l the PDS rice purchased by rhem with the pctitioner and they dishoncstly misappropriated or conyerted to their otrn lsc ot.used it itt ti.,lqtion ofe lawful direction or cotiract. In the uhsence of es:entlal factctrs, on the face of prosecution, thts Court finds it to bc a fit cuse ro t'xercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus .ontinuuncL,o/ pntceedings qgainst the petitioner is abuse o/ process o.f lat . 8. -fhe 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 procr:edings against the petitioner herein 9. Accordinglv, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings ur C.C.No.1815 of 2025, on the fi1e of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Jagt ial, against the petitioner'accused No.2, are hereby quashed 4 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUW REGIST

/TTRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, First Cl Magistrate at Jagtial, 1 The PrinciPal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial 2 The Station House Officer, Jagtial Rural Police Station, agtial District. Advocate [OPUC] K. Venumadhav, Mr' to CC One 3 for the St ate of Telangana, at High Court Prosecuto r Public to CCs Two 4 Hyderabad [OUT] 5 Two CD CoPies KAMiBA 4y HIGH COURT DATED: 0BtOgtZO26 ORDER CRLP.No.14369 of 2026 Y o ih: :- lJ l ft rl a 2025 t) I 7 SFP t14 .i/ . :\ ../ t. ;)/ ALLOWNG THE GRIMINAL PETITION 11 1b tt Iq

[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 14369 OF 2026 Between: Konda Laxman, S/o. Late Lachaiah, Age. 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 5-4-214, Vanjari Wada, Jagtial Proper and District. ...Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND 1. The State of Telangana, through S.H.O., P.S Jagtial Rural, Jagtial District, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. . .. Respondent Naib Tahasildar (Civil Supply), 2 Kukatla Umapathi, S/o. Rama Chandram, Occ. R/o. Tank Road, Sulthanabad. ...RespondenUDefacto Complainant 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 the charge sheet in C.C.No.1815 ol 2025, on the file of Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jagtial, as against the petitioner/ Accused No. 2. l.A. NO: 1OF 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 stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner/Accused No. 2 in C.C.No.1815 ot 2025, on the file of Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jagtial This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of arguments of Mr' K.Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the Venumadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE TIIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OT TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICT] J.SREI]NIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.14369 of2026 CN R N o.HBH C010602932026 Date: 08.09.2026. Between: Konda Laxman Petitioner AND '[he State of 1 elangana, and another ...Respondents ORDER l-his Criminal Petition has been filed by the 1npetitioner/accused No.2 seeking to quash the ltroceedings C.C .No.18l-5 of 2025. on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Jagtial. 2. Heard Mr.K.\,enumadhav, learned counsel fo: the petitioner and ,Vr.Jithender Itao Veeramalla, learned Additional public Prosecutor tbr respondent No.l

3 Thc spccr frc allesation against the petitioneri accused No.2 is that 6e has procurerl I)DS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate 2 to sell the same for proht and on 23.06.2025, the petitioner was found in possession of 182.20 quintals of PDS rice. for the petitioner would submit that without4. Leamed counsel there being aly complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the criminal intent andrice was procured deceptively or with a charging the petitioner for prosecution is untenable and improper' The allegations, even taken at his face value cannot be sustained Crl'P'No'5'709 ofagainst the petitioner. Further, this Court, in 2019, 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 peti tioner. leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per 5. The the prosecution, the offences said to have been committed by petitioner is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act') and requested to pass appropriate orders. contemplate that any person 6. Section 7 of the EC Act contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of 3

essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has procured PDS rice from the bcneficiaries after supply from the dealer (loordinate Bench of this Cou( in Crl.P.No.7227 of 20257 A has consiclered the idcntical facts and observed thal: "Therc is no uverment indiceling that the petitioner in any wuy clcceptivcll itdutecl the beneficiaries to port with the supplied PDS rice or tht beneJiciun entn6te(l the PDS rice purchased by rhem with the pctitioner and they dishoncstly misappropriated or conyerted to their otrn lsc ot.used it itt ti.,lqtion ofe lawful direction or cotiract. In the uhsence of es:entlal factctrs, on the face of prosecution, thts Court finds it to bc a fit cuse ro t'xercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus .ontinuuncL,o/ pntceedings qgainst the petitioner is abuse o/ process o.f lat . 8. -fhe 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 procr:edings against the petitioner herein 9. Accordinglv, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings ur C.C.No.1815 of 2025, on the fi1e of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Jagt ial, against the petitioner'accused No.2, are hereby quashed 4 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUW REGIST

/TTRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, First Cl Magistrate at Jagtial, 1 The PrinciPal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial 2 The Station House Officer, Jagtial Rural Police Station, agtial District. Advocate [OPUC] K. Venumadhav, Mr' to CC One 3 for the St ate of Telangana, at High Court Prosecuto r Public to CCs Two 4 Hyderabad [OUT] 5 Two CD CoPies KAMiBA 4y HIGH COURT DATED: 0BtOgtZO26 ORDER CRLP.No.14369 of 2026 Y o ih: :- lJ l ft rl a 2025 t) I 7 SFP t14 .i/ . :\ ../ t. ;)/ ALLOWNG THE GRIMINAL PETITION 11 1b tt Iq