THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4915 OF 2009 Date: 23.11.2011 Between: Gangishetti @ Gourishetti Srinivas …..Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …..Respondent THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4915 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioner herein is the accused No.1 in C.C.No.775 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Huzurabad, Karimangar District (trial court). The offences alleged are those punishable under Sections 406 and 409 read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 7 and 9 of Essential Commodities Act. He filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the aforesaid case. 3. The charge-sheet allegations show that the accused No.1 is lessee of a rice mill and that about 103 quintals of rice meant for transportation from APSWC godown at Chinthalapalli Village to be delivered at Mandal level stockist point at Jammikunta was found in the rice mill of the petitioner. The rice is stated to be belonging to the scheme of “Food for Work”. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the rice in question does not belong to the above scheme and that it has also not been properly identified as belonging to the said scheme. On the other hand, the contention of the investigation agency is that in collusion with the other accused and certain officials, the petitioner mischievously brought the said rice for the gain of all of them. The learned counsel for petitioner says that the petitioner is totally innocent. 5. It may be noted that the petitioner may be innocent or may not be innocent and this is a matter to be decided by the trial court either in an application for discharge or in the course of trial. The allegations as they stand would disclose the offences against the petitioner which with regard to the rice belonging to the scheme run by the Government and which is not meant for sale outside. 6. A complaint is made by the learned counsel for petitioner that unnecessarily the offences under Sections 406 and 409 IPC have been added and they deal with criminal breach of trust by a non-official and the criminal breach of trust by a public servant. It is not known whether the rice was entrusted to the petitioner in any capacity but on the above allegations it is for the learned Magistrate to decide as to which of the offences are attracted. This apart, the charge-sheet also shows that the offences under the Essential Commodities Act are also included in it. In these circumstances, it is not desirable for this Court to decide about the same. To sum up, it can be said that the allegations in the charge-sheet do disclose the offences against the petitioner and it is for the trial court to decide which the offence applicable in the case of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 23rd November, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4915 OF 2009 DATE: 23.11.2011