Disposed

M/s. Krishak Bharathi Cooperative Ltd., v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC21 Dec 2012CRLRC/2028/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two criminal revisions against an order confiscating fertilizer stocks. Applying a lenient view due to co-operative status and regulatory oversight, the Court directed the return of the bank guarantee upon deposit of Rs.50,000 as fine.

What did the court decide?

Bank guarantee directed to be returned to petitioners after depositing Rs.50,000 towards fine.

M/s. Krishak Bharathi Cooperative Ltd., Vs The State of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

Crl.R.C.Nos.1944 and 2028 of 2005

¶3

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶4

Since both these revisions arise out of the criminal appeals filed against the order dated 30.09.2000 in Case No.S6/1408/2000 passed by the District Collector, Nizamabad, they are being taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.

¶5

2. The brief facts of the case are that on credible information, the Fertilizer Inspector and Assistant Director of Agriculture, Kamareddy-complainant along with the mediators proceeded to the godowns situated at Agricultural Market Committee, Kamareddy and also at PACS, Tadwai on 17.05.2000, inspected the same and found storage of 7861 bags of urea and 7962 bags of different varieties of fertilizers in godown Nos.1 and 3 respectively, of Agricultural Market Committee and found 5600 bags of urea in godown No.16 of PACS, Tadwai. On demand, the petitioners in both the revisions have not produced any record/permission for the said storage and thereby, contravened the provisions of Fertilizer Control Order. Hence, the complainant seized those bags and handed over the same to the concerned for safe custody and filed a report against the petitioners The proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act had been initiated against the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners were served with notices calling for explanation. The Collector, Nizamabad,

¶6

after holding an enquiry, rejected the contentions put forth by the petitioners in their explanations and ordered confiscation of 50% of the seized stock vide order dated 30.09.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners in Crl.R.C.Nos.1944 and 2028 of 2005 filed Crl.A.Nos.87 and 88 of 2000 respectively, before the Sessions Judge, Nizambad. By judgments dated 29.08.2005, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed those appeals confirming the order of the District Collector. Challenging the same, the present revisions are preferred by the petitioners.

¶7

3. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

¶8

4. This Court while admitting both the revisions granted interim suspension of the order dated 30.09.2000 passed by the District Collector, Nizamabad, in Case No.SR/1408/2000, as confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Nmizamabad in Crl.A.No.88 of 2000, on the same terms and conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, while continuing the Bank guarantee.

¶9

5. When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has produced before this Court a memo dated 26.05.2000, as per which, the Commissioner of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, requested the Joint Director of Agriculture, Nizamabad to examine and arrange for release of the stock as the KRIBHCO, the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.2028 of 2005, is a cooperative society and they cannot sell anything in the open market except through the cooperative societies. He also informed

¶10

about the inclusion of godowns of Kamareddy and Tadwai in the Certificate of Registration.

¶11

6. Admittedly, both the revision petitioners are cooperative societies and the petitioner society in Crl.R.C.No.2028 of 2005 is running under the control of the State Government. On the date of inspection, the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1944 is not having any certificate of registration for storage of huge quantity of fertilizers belonging to KRIBHCO and it did not maintain the stock register properly about the stock received from KRIBHCO and even, there was no agreement between the petitioners with regard to the storage of the stocks. On appreciation of the said facts and circumstances, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeals confirming the order of confiscation passed by the Collector. On perusal of the entire material on record, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments. But however, in view of the subsequent memo dated 26.05.2000 issued by the Commissioner of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad requesting the Joint Director of Agriculture, Nizamabad, to examine and release the stock as the petitioner in Cr.R.C.No.2028 of 2005 is a cooperative society and they cannot be permitted to sell in the open market except through the cooperative societies and also about the inclusion of godowns at Kamareddy and Tadwai in the Certificate of Registration, this Court is of the view that a lenient view would be taken in the matter. In the circumstances of the case, the authorities concerned are directed to return the Bank guarantee to the petitioners on deposit of a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) towards fine amount before the

¶12

District Collector, Nizamabad.

¶13

7. With the aforesaid direction, both the Criminal Revision Cases are disposed of. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶15

21^st December, 2012 sj

M/s. Krishak Bharathi Cooperative Ltd., v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Krishak Bharathi Cooperative Ltd., v. The State of A.P.

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

S. Raveendra Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.

S. Rajitha, Vs Narahari Laxmi Reddy

Koripalli Venu Babu Vs State of A.P

Gujjala Syam Prasad Vs State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

Myakala Laxma Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T. Swathi, Vs D. Bala Krishna