logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 TSHC 858 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 13567 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
Parties : Jayanti Rama Rao Versus The State of Telangana & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Kavali Vishnu Kanth, Advocate. For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 20-08-2026
Head Note :-
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 -

Case Referred:
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar ((2014) 8 SCC 273)
Judgment :-

1. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioner/accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.100 of 2026 of Kalluru Police Station, Khammam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’) and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955, (for short ‘EC Act’).

2. Heard Mr.K. Vishnu Kanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. With their consent, the criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations levelled in the complaint, the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5) read with 3(5) of BNS and Section 7 of EC Act are not attracted. There is no dishonest intention and conspiracy between the petitioner and accused No.1. Petitioner purchased rice from accused No.1 in turn accused No.1 purchased rice from the card holders and the issue raised in the present criminal petition is already decided by this Court in Crl.P.No.842 of 2026 on 28.01.2026. When the PDS rice purchased by any other person from the card holder which will not offence and the ingredients under Sections 318(4), 316(5) read with 3(5) of BNS and Section 7 of the EC Act are not attracted. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner that the petitioner had purchased PDS rice from the accused No.1. Accused No.1 is none other than the fair price shop dealer, the Government entrusted the PDS rice for distribution to the card holders through accused No.1. Accused No.1 without distributing the rice to the card holders, on the other hand he alienated/sold the PDS rice which are belong to the card holders to petitioner No.2 for higher rates. The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the complaint attract the offences under Sections Sections 318(4), 316(5) read with 3(5) of BNS and Section 7 of the EC Act and the investigation is under process. The petitioner is not entitled to seek quash of the proceedings at this stage.

6. Whether accused No.1 purchased rice from the card holders or whether without distributing the PDS rice which were entrusted to accused No.1 sold the same to the petitioner is the disputed fact and the same will be revealed during the course of investigation.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply submits that the ingredients for the offence under Section 316(5) is attracted only so far as accused No.1 is concerned as accused No.1 only is entrusted to distribute the PDS rice to the card holders. He further submitted that the other offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of BNSS and without following the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar ((2014) 8 SCC 273), is proceeding further in the matter and the same is contrary to law.

8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that there are specific allegations in the complaint that the petitioner purchased the seized PDS rice from Accused No.1. Accused No.1 is none other than the fair price shop dealer. Hence, this Court is of the view that the material on record discloses the common intention of the petitioner and Accused No.1 in respect of the alleged offence, attracting Section 3(5) of the BNS. The offences alleged against the petitioner under Section 318(4) of BNS and Section 7 of the EC Act are attracted. However, insofar as Section 316(5) of the BNS is concerned, this Court is of the view that the said provision is not attracted against the petitioner. The other offences are under Section 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS and Section 7 of the EC Act, which are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer wants to follow the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Section 35(3) of the BNSS.

9. In view of the same, the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS, and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) and the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to submit reply to the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS by raising all the pleas which are available to him and he is also entitled to submit the documents, if any, which are in his custody, to the Investigating Officer.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal