Pothuganti Srinivas, v. The State of Telanaana,

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO

Judgment date: 2026-04-22

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-22. Pothuganti Srinivas, v. The State of Telanaana,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6233 OF 2026 Between: 1. Pothuganti Srinivas, S/o Venkateshwarlu, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o H. No. '1-393, Near ZPGHS, Miryalguda Town, Nalgonda District. 2. Macha Suman, S/o Somaiah, Aged about 31 years, Occ: Driver, Rl/o Mulkalkalva Village, Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda District. 3. Pagadala Yesobu, S/o Venkataiah, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Coolie, Rl/o Mulkalkalwa Village, Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda District. 4. Nukapanga Raghu, S/o Mallaiah, Aged about 28 years, Occ: Coolie, Rl/o Mulkalkalwa Village, Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda District. 5. Ram Sravan Kumar, S/o Saidulu, Aged about 26 years, Occ: Student, Rl/o Mulkalkalwa Village, Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda District. 6. Gundeboina Raju, S/o Somaiah.

Aged about 33 years, Occ: Coolie, FI/o Mulkalkalwa Village, Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda District. 7. Ketavath Ramulu, S/o Raanya, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, Rl/o Hatya Thanda Village. Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda District. 8. Kethavath Malu, S/o Bodiya, Aged about 4Syears, Occ: Agriculture, Rl/o Kethavath Thanda, Damercheria Mandal, Nalgonda District. 9. Kethavath Shanthi, Wlo Chandru, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, Rl/o Kethavath Thanda, Damercherla Mandal, Nalgonda. ... Petitioners/A-l To A-5 AND 1 . The State of Telanaana,, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad. . .. Respondent :rF4 2 Sri. Veerjala Laxman Babu, S/o Rarnulu, Aged about 43 years, Occ Nayab Tahsildar (Civil Suppties), Miryatguda, FUo H. No. 3-j0-62/1, Near Rapolu Temple, Suryapet Town. ..

Respondents/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 call for the records in cc No. 493 of 2020 on the fite of ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Miryalguda and quash the same. l. A. NO: 2 OF 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 petitioners in cc No. 493 of 2020 on the file of tt Additional Judicial First ctass Magistrate at Miryalguda pending disposal of the main criminal petition.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri cH Ravinder, Advocate for the Petitioners and sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the public Additional Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No- 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER a IN THE HIGH COURT FO R THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITI ON No. 6233 of 2026 Datet,22. 04. 2026 Between: Pothuganti Srinivas and eight others ... Petitioners AND The State ofTelangana, and another ... Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitidners/accused Nos. I to 9 seeking to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 493 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Miryalaguda. 2. Heard Mr. Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.

Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. I . 3. The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos. l to 9 is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 13. 03. 2020, the petitioners were found in possession of' 42 bags of PDS nce totalling 41 quintals. 4. I-earned counsel for the petitioners would submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations, even taken at their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Court, in Crt. P. No. 5709 of 2019, while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the olfences alleged against the petitioners therein could not be continued and accordingly quashed the proceedings.

The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. -[he 5. leamed Additional Public Prosccutor submits that as per prosecution, the offences said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short'EC Act') and requested to pass appropriate orders 6. Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply. distribution and trade of c essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer. 1 . A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. P. No.

7227 of Z0Z5 has considered the identical facts and observed that: I I "There is no dyerment indicuting thal the pelitioner in any way deceptively induced the benefciuries to purt with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entnsled the PDS ricc purchasatl by them with the pelitioner and they dishoneslly misappropriated or converted lo their own use or used it in violatbn ofa lawful direction or contract. In the absence of essentiol fuclors, on the foce of prosecution, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continudnce of proceedings againsl the petitioner is abuse ofprocess of law". 0 8. The facts and circumstances ol the present case also similar , to those in the above case and hence, this Court hnds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. 9.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C. C. No. 493 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Miryalaguda, against the petitioners/accused Nos. I to 9, are hereby quashed Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shalI stand closed Sd/. P. C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// /a: IJ sEcTloN oFFlcER ,/ To Magistrate at Miryalguda. 1 The ll Additional Judicial First Class 2 The Station House Officer, Miryalaguda Rural Police Station, Nalgonda' Court for the State of Telangana, at 3 Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Hyderabad [OUT] 4. One CC to Sri CH Ravinder, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies S&l/H nr 1 I \ I HIGH COURT DATED: 2210412026 . 4: +. i_ lL t\ r\} t , """t v S" /, :,-. ) s\ + ORDER ') CRLP. No. 6233 of 2O26 arrH ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q -8h 5"w

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.