IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE TWELVETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. S. NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7115 OF 2009 Between: Jamili Chandrasekhar s/o Kotilingam Aged about 51 years, Occ. FP Shop dealer H.No.9-10-21/1, Pothinavari veedhi Kothapet, Vijayawada, Krishna district & 4-Ors. … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP Hyderabad & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri K.Vinay Kumar Counsel for the Respondents : Addl.Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. S. NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7115 OF 2010 O R D E R : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. It is stated that the matter is not pressed against the petitioners 1, 2 and 5. 3. The counsel for the petitioners would submit that even if the allegations against the petitioners are taken into consideration, no prima facie is made out as against the third and fourth petitioners. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that no doubt the third petitioner is a auto driver but as against fourth petitioner there are certain allegations. 4. This Criminal Petition is filed praying for quashing of the proceedings in CC.No.93 of 2008 on the file of the Court of First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vjayawada. 5. Several facts had been narrated in the Criminal Petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. It is stated that there is no material even prima facie to show that the subject rice is under Public Distribution System Rice and there are no identification marks in this regard. It is further stated that there is no prohibition for free movement of rice for sale or purchase of rice in the State of Andhra Pradesh, as such, the offence as alleged under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act has no application to the facts of this case. It is also stated that in the absence of any legal prohibition registering of crime against the petitioners is illegal and there is no justification in continuing such prosecution, which amounts to harassment. Further it is stated that on the face of it, no case is made out muchless the offence alleged in the FIR. 7. It is further stated that the police Patamata Police Station Vijayawada city without conducting independent inquiry have filed the charge sheet in CC.No. 939 of 2009 for the alleged offence under sections 406, 407, read with section 109 IPC and section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is stated that when the seized material i.e., rice is not prohibitory material nor any material to show that the said rice is under Public Distribution System rice filing of charge sheet is unjust and without sanction of law. It is further stated that since continuation of the impugned proceedings is abuse of process of law apart from that impugned proceedings are causing hardship and mental agony to them. It is also stated that the petitioner No.1 is a fair price shop dealer conducting business as per control order, petitioner No. 2 is neither fair price shop dealer nor having any independent shop, since he is the owner of the shop of petitioner No.1, he was also implicated in the said crime, petitioner No.3 is driver and nothing to do with the rice business, still the police have filed charge sheet against him. It is also stated that the petitioner No.4 is the wife of petitioner No.5 and petitioner No.5 is not in the rice business and he is ticket agent, and petitioner No.4 is rice trader having all licences as such, filing of criminal case against them is not sustainable. It is further stated that with regard to seizure is concerned, under section 6-A proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act are pending before the Joint Collector, Machilipatnam. Therefore, the petitioners are reserving their right to contest the same but filing criminal case by the respondent No.2 is not justifiable, since the respondent No.2 is not competent to initiate action under the control order but impugned proceedings are not maintainable. 8. As can be seen from the allegations made, in-as-much-as, the third petitioner is only a auto rickshaw driver, the proceedings as against the third petitioner are liable to be quashed and accordingly they are hereby quashed. As far as, the fourth petitioner is concerned, since there are certain allegations may be that the defence taken at an appropriate stage. 9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. __________________________ JUSTICE P. S. NARAYANA. 12-03-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7115 of 2009 Circulation Entry No. 2 7 Date: 12-03-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L