Dismissed

Narendula Ramesh, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC1 Sept 2014CRLRC/1702/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision concerning the modified confiscation of fertilizer stock, the High Court found no illegality in the orders below. The revision was dismissed on default of appearance by the petitioner, confirming the 10% confiscation ordered by the appellate court.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case is dismissed confirming the confiscation of 10% of the seized stock ordered by the appellate court.

Narendula Ramesh, Vs The State of A.P. — Telangana HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1702 OF 2007 Dated 1-9-2014

¶2

Between:

¶3

Narendula Ramesh.

¶4

..Petitioner.

¶5

And: The State of A.P. through the Inspector of Police, VCCSD, Karimnagar, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶6

…Respondent.

¶7

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1702 OF 2007 ORDER:

¶8

This revision is against judgment dated 29-6-2006 in Criminal Appeal No.149 of 2004 on the file of Sessions Judge, Karimnagar whereunder order of confiscation passed by the Joint Collector, Karimnagar dated 23-82004 is modified.

¶9

Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows: Inspector of Police, VCCS, Karimnagar, inspected the business godown of revision petitioner on 16-7-2000 and on inspection of registers and ground stock, he noticed shortage of fertilizers and on that, a report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act was laid before collector and collector issued a show cause notice and after considering the objections of the appellant ordered confiscation of 20% of the stock seized and aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, on a consideration of material modified the order of the Joint Collector by reducing 20% of confiscation to 10%. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.

¶10

When this matter is listed on 12-8-2014, no one appeared for the petitioner and therefore, it was directed to be listed to this day under the caption of dismissal. In spite of posting the matter under the caption of dismissal, no interest is evinced to prosecute the case.

¶11

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the orders of the learned Sessions Judge and it has rightly considered the objection of the revision petitioner.

¶12

Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the Judgment of the Sessions Court and order of the Joint Collector are legal, correct and proper?

¶13

POINT:

¶14

As seen from the material papers, when the premises of appellant was inspected, it was found that there was variation of ground stock with the stock mentioned in the registers. The Inspecting authority found shortage of fertilizers which was in violation of the control orders and considering the same, the Joint Collector held that there is contravention of Fertilizers Control Order, 1985 and also clause 8 of A.P. Fertilizers (Distribution and Sales by Dealers) Order, 1978 and ordered for confiscation of only 20% of the seized stock which was reduced by the appellate court to 10%.

¶15

I do not find any illegality in the order of the joint collector or in the judgment of the Sessions Judge. Even both the Joint Collector or Sessions Judge have sympathetically considered the case and took a very lenient view in confiscating the seized stock.

¶16

I do not find any wrong in the orders of the appellate court and therefore, I am of the view that there are no merits in the revision.

¶17

For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming confiscation ordered by the appellate court.

¶18

As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.

¶19

_______________________ JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR

¶20

Dated 1-9-2014. Dvs.

¶21

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR

¶22

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1702 OF 2007 Dated 1-9-2014

¶23

Dvs

Narendula Ramesh, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendula Ramesh, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Chandra Shekar, Vs The State of Telangana

Karri Yerrni Avatharam, Vs The State of a.P., rep. by its P.P.

Shaik Pappu John S/o Imama Saheb Vs State of Telangana

Smt.Thatikonda Swaroopa, Vs The State of A.P.

Pasam China Venkata Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Aggdi Bakkamma, Vs The State of A.P.