THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4431 of 2009 Dated: - 29th September, 2011 Between Sadasiva Rao and others …Petitioners AND State of A.P. rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4431 of 2009 ORDER:- This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.135 of 2009 dated 10.06.2009 on the file of the Police Station, Nakerikal. 2. As seen from the facts of the case, on 10.06.2009 at 10:00 A.M. at Karempudi Cross Roads, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nakirekal, arrested the first accused Shaik Moulali, S/o. Syda Saheb – the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 07 W 9186 and seized the said lorry along with 350 bags of PDS rice under a cover of Mahajar, duly attested by mediators. Basing on the same, a case in Crime No.135 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, was registered with Police Station, Nakirekal. During the course of investigation, one K.Pullaiah – Mandal Revenue Inspector, Office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nakerikal, and other witnesses Kinnera Sundar Rao and one Gopu Bhavani Prasad and the mediators to the Mahajar were examined. 3. Investigation revealed that the first petitioner K.Sadasiva Rao is the owner of the seized lorry and that the rice which was being transported in the seized lorry was meant for public distribution and that the second petitioner – Tata Subramanyam collected the PDS rice from the Fair Price Shop and was transporting the same from Vinukonda to Maharashtra and that the driver of the lorry – Shaik Moulali had taken over the lorry from one Galaiah – another driver at Nakerikal and that the said PDS rice was being transported without any valid records. Subsequently, the Tahsildar, Nakirekal and the Mandal Revenue Officer received the stock and preserved the samples to forward the same for further action and it appears that the investigation is pending. 4. Sri K.Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that proceedings under Section 6(a) of the Essential Commodities Act are pending against the petitioners herein before the Joint Collector and that the material on record does not show that prima facie case has been made out against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 IPC and, therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are no grounds in the petition to quash the FIR against the petitioners. 6. It is settled law that in the cases filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., i.e., to quash the proceedings, detailed examination of the documents filed by the petitioners/accused is not necessary. There is nothing on record to show that the allegations made in the FIR or in the Panchanama and the facts that were revealed during the course of investigation do not make out any case against the petitioners. Therefore, there is nothing on record to say that the allegations made out against the petitioners in the FIR, Remand Report, Panchanama etc., even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, did not prima facie constitute any offence and make out any case against the petitioners. 7. Therefore, I do not see any reason to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 29th September, 2011 Bvv