Telangana High Court
Gone Ramesh vs The State Of Telangana on 16 August, 2021
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3756 OF 2021
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.143 of 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet, Warangal Rural District.
2. The petitioner herein is accused No.2 in the said Calendar Case. The offences alleged against him are under Section - 420 of IPC and Sections - 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'Act, 1955').
3. Heard Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State. Despite service of notice on respondent No.2, none appears.
4. As per the charge sheet, the allegations against the petitioner herein are as under:
i) The petitioner herein - accused No.2 is resident of Peddapuram village of Atmakuram Mandal. Accused No.1 is CEO of PACS, Duggondi. The petitioner herein is broker.
ii) Accused No.1 has issued track sheets illegally in the name of two farmers, and on 13.04.2020 they have unloaded 127 quintals of Maize grains in Latest Agricultural market.
KL,J 2 Crl.P. No.3756 of 2021
iii) On 16.04.2020, respondent No.2 herein (LW.1), Agriculture Officer, while checking the track sheets related to purchase of maize grains, they have noticed that a track sheet was issued on DCM Van bearing registration No.TS 03UA 9315 in the name of two farmers viz., 150 bags @ 51 kilograms in the name of Mr. Kola Nagaraju and 104 bags @ 51 kilograms in the name of Mr. Kolipaka Ravi. At the same time, the said maize stock was unloaded in Agricultural Market, Venkatapuram Village, Duggondi Mandal.
iv) On enquiry, the said two persons have revealed that till then they did not consult with the Agricultural Department, Duggondi for want of coupon and their crops were not harvested completely and did not sell their maize grains to PACS, Duggondi Purchase Centre.
v) Accused No.1, CEO of PACS, Duggondi has colluded with the petitioner herein being a broker and illegally issued the said track sheet in the names of said two farmers, and on 13.04.2020 they have unloaded the said 127 quintals of maize grains in Latest Agricultural Market.
vi) The vehicle bearing registration No.TS 03U 49315 mentioned in Track sheet was not present in the Transport contract and they have mentioned one Srikanth, vehicle contractor vide phone number 9449691094. They have also mentioned that they did not hire said vehicle from their Agency and they were no way concerned with the said vehicle.
KL,J 3 Crl.P. No.3756 of 2021
vii) On questioning, the vehicle driver and broker, accused No.2, with regard to purchase of 127 quintals of maize grains revealed that he purchased 78 bags @ 51 kilograms from LW.2, Bussari Srinu and 100 bags @ 51 kilograms from LW.3, Gaddam Ravinder, 76 bagas @ 51 kilograms, making a total of 254 bags @ 51 kilograms worth Rs.1660/- per quintals, and thereby the said persons have cheated the farmers and the State Government, causing loss to a tune of Rs.12,700/-. The worth of the said 254 bags of maize grains is Rs.2,23,520/-.
viii) Previously, a case was registered against accused No.1, CEO, PACS, Duggondi vide Crime No.40 of 2020 on the very same allegations. Thus, the petitioner herein and accused No.1 have cheated the Government and farmers by deviating the support of the Government rate and thereby violating Section - 7 of the Act, 1955.
5. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
i) Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is nothing to do with the issuance of track sheets and he is not a broker as alleged in the charge sheet. In support of the same, Investigating Officer has not recorded the statements of any of the witnesses, and none of the witnesses deposed that the petitioner herein is a broker. Maize is neither an essential commodity, nor a schedule commodity. No control order under Section - 3 of the Act, 1955 was issued regulating sale, purchase and KL,J 4 Crl.P. No.3756 of 2021 transportation of maize. Therefore, the contents of the charge sheet do not attract the offence under Section - 7 of the Act, 1955. Even then, the Investigating Officer without considering the said facts laid the charge sheet against the petitioner herein for the offence under Section
- 7 of the Act, 1955.
ii) There is no inducement by the petitioner herein either at the inception or at a later stage. The ingredients of Section - 420 are lacking. None of the witnesses deposed that the petitioner in collusion with accused No.1 cheated either the farmers or the Government.
Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the contents of the charge sheet lack the ingredients of Section - 420 of IPC. There is no complaint from any farmer. The Investigating Officer has not recorded the statements of farmers, viz., Mr. Kola Nagaraju and Mr. Kolipaka Ravi, whose names were referred to by LW.1 - de facto complainant in the statement recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. Even then, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the petitioner herein for the offence under Section - 420 of IPC. Proceedings under Section - 6A of the Act, 1955 were not initiated so far. According to him, the Investigating Officer has registered the present crime only for statistical purpose. The seized maize is lying with respondent No.2 and it is a perishable good and, therefore, he sought to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.143 of 2020 and to release the seized stock.
KL,J 5 Crl.P. No.3756 of 2021
6. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:
i) Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that maize is not an essential commodity, nor it is a schedule commodity. However, there are specific allegations against the petitioner that he in collusion with accused No.1 have cheated the Government by way of issuing the above said track sheets. Accused No.1 has involved in one more case viz., Crime No.40 of 2020 for the very same offence. There is specific allegation that the petitioner herein is a broker. There are several triable issues and the petitioner herein has to face trial and prove his innocence.
ii) With the above said contentions, he sought to dismiss the present petition.
7. FINDING OF THE COURT:
i) The above stated submissions would reveal that on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, Duggondi Police Station has registered a case in Crime No.43 of 2020 against the petitioner herein and accused No.1 for the offences under Section - 420 of IPC and Sections - 7 and 8 of the Act, 1955. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has laid charge sheet against the petitioner and accused No.1 and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.143 of 2020 for the said offences.
ii) During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of respondent No.2, Agriculture Officer KL,J 6 Crl.P. No.3756 of 2021 (LW.1), Mr. Bussani Srinu (LW.2), Mr. Gadam Ravinder (LW.3), Mr. Jannu Sathish (LW.4). The Investigating Officer has not recorded the statements of Mr. Kola Nagaraju and Mr. Kolipaka Ravi, on whose names the said track sheets were issued.
iii) In the statement recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C., respondent No.2 as LW.1, has specifically stated that on 16.04.2020 at about 9.30 a.m., on the directions of the District Collector, he went to the Maize Purchase Centres and verified the track sheets. On verification of track sheet No.102, dated 13.04.2020, he found that track sheets were issued in the names of two farmers, viz., Mr. Kola Nagaraju for 150 bags @ 51 kilograms and Mr. Kolipaka Ravi for 104 bags @ 51 kilograms, making a total of 254 bags worth 127 quintals.
The said track sheet was issued on DCM Vehicle bearing registration No.TS 03UA 9315. The said stock was downloaded in Latest Agricultural Market Centre, Venkatapur Village of Duggondi Mandal. Therefore, he has enquired with the said two farmers, viz., Mr. Kola Nagaraju and Mr. Kolipaka Ravi, who in-turn informed respondent No.2 that they have not contacted any Agriculture Officer for the purpose of issuance of track sheets. They have further informed that they have not sold the maize in PACS, Duggondi. Thus, according to respondent No.2, accused No.1 has issued the track sheets in collusion with petitioner herein in the names of aforesaid two farmers and, thus, they have cheated the Government.
KL,J 7 Crl.P. No.3756 of 2021
iv) As stated above, in the complaint as well as in the statement recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C., respondent No.2 has categorically referred the names of two farmers, but the Investigating Officer has not recorded their statements. It is also relevant to note that LW.2 - Mr. Bussani Srinu, LW.3 - Mr. Gadam Ravinder and LW.4 - Mr. Jannu Sathish have stated in their statements recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. that the petitioner approached them on 12.04.2020 at 10.00 a.m., and informed them that they would purchase the maize at Rs.1660/- per quintal. LW.2 in his statement has stated that the petitioner informed him that he has also purchased the maize of LWs.3 and 4, who belongs to the village to which LW.2 belongs. Except that, they have not mentioned any other thing. Thus, the statements of LWs.2 to 4 would reveal that they never stated that the petitioner herein along with accused No.1 cheated them.
v) Section - 415 of IPC deals with 'cheating', and as per which, whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". Section - 420 of IPC deals with 'cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property', and as per which, whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly KL,J 8 Crl.P. No.3756 of 2021 induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
vi) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prof. R. K.Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam1 held as under:
"13 Section 405 of the Penal Code reads thus:
"Section 405.- Criminal breach of trust.- Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
A careful reading of Section 405 shows that the ingredients of a criminal breach of trust are as follows:
i) A person should have been entrusted with property, or entrusted with dominion over property;
ii) That person should dishonestly misappropriate or convert to their own use that property, or dishonestly use or dispose of that property or willfully suffer any other person to do so; and
iii) That such misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal should be in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract which the person has made, touching the discharge of such trust.
1
. (2019) 16 SCC 739 KL,J 9 Crl.P. No.3756 of 2021 Entrustment is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly misappropriates property entrusted to them contrary to the terms of an obligation imposed is liable for a criminal breach of trust and is punished under Section 406 of the Penal Code.
14 Section 415 of the Penal Code reads thus:
"Section 415. Cheating.- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to 6 Section 406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.- Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat"." The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows:
i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him;
ii) (a) the person so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or
(b) the person so induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and
iii) in cases covered by (ii) (b) above, the act or omission should be one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who KL,J 10 Crl.P. No.3756 of 2021 dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating. 15 Section 420 of the Penal Code reads thus:
"Section 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing deliver of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable to being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows:
i) A person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and
ii) The person cheated must be dishonestly induced to
(a) deliver property to any person; or
(b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security.
Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420."
vii) The above principle was also reiterated by the Apex Court in Lakshman v. State of Karnataka2 and Archana Rana v. The State of Uttar Pradesh3.
8. CONCLUSION:
i) In view of the above discussion and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above decisions, there is no control order as required under Section - 3 of the Act, 1955 for the purpose of 2 . (2019) 9 SCC 677 3 . (2021) 3 SCC 751 KL,J 11 Crl.P. No.3756 of 2021 regulating sale, purchase and trade of maize, and the same was not even mentioned in the charge sheet. The contents of the charge sheet lack the offences under Sections - 7 and 8 of the Act, 1955. There is no inducement by the petitioner herein either at the inception or at a later stage. Even the contents of the charge sheet lack the ingredients of offence under Section - 420 of IPC. Thus, viewed from any angle, the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. 143 of 2020 are liable to be quashed.
ii) The present Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed, and the proceedings in C.C. No.143 of 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet, Warangal Rural District, are hereby quashed against the petitioner - accused No.2.
iii) Since the proceedings are quashed against the petitioner -
accused No.2, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application before the learned Magistrate for return of seized stock, and the learned Magistrate is directed to release the same on verification of ownership of stock under due acknowledgment.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 16th August, 2021 Mgr