Partly allowed

Tatikonda Satish, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC21 Feb 2011CRLRC/2248/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition against appellate order reducing seizure from 10% to 5% of seized stock value. Court upheld reduction but modified confiscation amount to Rs.75,000- as 5% of total value was excessive. Criminal revision dismissed with modification.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision dismissed but confiscation restricted to Rs.75,000- instead of 5% value.

Tatikonda Satish, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Telangana HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.2248 of 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal, in Crl.A.No.44 of 2008 dated 21.07.2010 modifying the order of confiscation from 10% to 5% value of the seized stock in favour of the Government passed by the District Collector, Warangal, in E.C.A.C.No.47 of 2008 dated 24.06.2008.

¶4

It is the case of the prosecution that on 08.05.2008, the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer, Warangal, inspected the Rice Mill premises of the revision petitioner and found that the petitioner had shown 2311.78 quintals paddy to have been milled, for which resultant rice as 1320 quintals and broken rice was 230 quintals, but he did not deliver levy to the FCI and on verification of the bill book, it was found that he sold 1845 quintals rice and 340 quintals broken rice in violation of Clause 4 of the A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. When questioned about the sale of rice in the open market without delivering levy to the FCI and purchasing paddy below minimum support price and nonsubmission of fortnightly reports to the District Collector (CS), the petitioner did not give any satisfactory reply leading to the inference that he grossly violated Clauses (3), (4) and (16) of the A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. The entire ground stock of paddy available in the Mill premises was seized and the cost of the seized stock was

¶5

worked out to Rs.28,03,756/-. Thereafter, he lodged a report under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act with the District Collector, Warangal, for interim disposal and for confiscation of entire seized stock in favour of the State. Pursuant thereto, the District Collector, Warangal, issued a show cause notice calling for the explanation of the revision petitioner under Section 6-B of the Act, to which the petitioner gave a reply. Subsequently, the District Collector, Warangal, passed an order dated 24.06.2008 confiscating 10% of the value of the seized stock in favour of the Government. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal being Crl.A.No.44 of 2008 and the District Judge, Warangal, while confirming the findings recorded by the District Collector, Warangal, modified the confiscation of 10% value of the seized stock to 5% value of the seized stock. Hence the criminal revision petition.

¶6

Heard both sides.

¶7

Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on either side and having perused the impugned orders, this Court is of the view that the appellate Court rightly reduced the percentage of stocks from 10% to 5% and the said percentage of confiscation is not on higher side. That apart, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has also not produced any other material before me, which would discredit the evidence on record.

¶8

In the circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the appellate Court reducing the Order of confiscation passed by the District Collector.

¶9

However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and as the confiscation of 5% value of the seized stock is working out to Rs.1,40,187.80 paise, this Court is of the view that the some relief can be given to the petitioner and accordingly the said confiscation of seized stock is restricted to Rs.75,000/-.

¶10

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed with the above modification.

¶11

_______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J)

¶12

21-02-2011 Gsn.

Tatikonda Satish, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tatikonda Satish, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Tatineni Suneeta Vs The Assistant Graing Purchasing Officer

Baireni Ravi (A-3) Vs The State of A.P.

Sri Kommisetti Venkata Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vungarala Satyanarayana Murthy Naidu, Vs Vungarala Narayana Murthy Naidu

Sk.MAdar Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

Danthamsetty Basava Reddy , Basavaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh