Partly allowed

Sri Gangawath Pantha v. The Deputy Tahsildar, (Enforcement)

Telangana HC16 Sept 2014CRLRC/2343/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision held that while the petitioner admitted diverting kerosene to the black market, the confiscation of 60% of seized stock was excessive. The court reduced the confiscation penalty to 30% of the seized stock value, confirming the diversion but moderating the punishment.

What did the court decide?

Confiscation of 60% value of seized stock reduced to 30% of the seized stock value.

Sri Gangawath Pantha Vs The Deputy Tahsildar, (Enforcement) — Telangana HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2343 of 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C by the petitioner, having been aggrieved by the dismissal judgment dated 06.03.2014 in Crl.A.No.118 of 2013 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge at Nizamabad, confirming the order of the Joint Collector, Nizamabad, dated 17.08.2014 in CS6/460/2013.

¶4

2. The brief facts of the case are that the revision 1^st respondent- the Deputy Tahasildar(Enforcement) Machareddy Mandal Revenue Office, Kamareddy, Nizamabad district, lodged a complaint against the revision petitioner who is dealer of Fair Price Shop No.28 of Reddypet of Machareddy Mandal alleging that he is selling blue Kerosene in black market and on 17.04.2013 the revision-1^st respondent inspected the shop and on enquiry he was informed that the revision petitioner is also incharge of Fair Price Shop No.29 of Shyamala and the kerosene allotment for two shops is 2177 litres i.e. 1159 litres for shop No.28 and 1018 litres for shop No.29, which he lifted from M/s Laxmi Krupa Agencies, Armoorthe respondent No.2 herein and the dealer has given only one bill No.29, dated 16.04.2013 for 1159 liters of his shop No.28 and the dealer has not given the bill for 1018 litres issued to the shop No.29 to which he is in charge. The Tahasildar has verified the stocks and found that there is only 1820 liters of Oil in the shop and 357 litres is found shortage. On enquiry about the shortage, the revision petitioner admitted before the panchas and villagers that he illegally sold it in black market. He has not shown the stock register and distribution register during the enquiry. The Tahasilrar seized the 1820 litres of oil under cover of panchanama and thereafter filed report under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the case was taken on file by the Joint Collector, Nizamabad and notices under Section 6-B of the E.C. Act were issued to the revision petitioner

¶5

who appeared before the Joint Collector but did not file any written statement to the show cause notice. The Joint Collector, Nizamabad after thorough enquiry found that the appellant has indulged in diversion of PDS Commodities and has contravened Clause 17(b)(c),19, Annexure –I of the APS PDS (Control) Order 2008 and condition 4(i)(ii),8,10 and 12 of the authorization and ordered for confiscation of 60% value of the seized stock in favour of the Government. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner preferred appeal vide Crl.A.No.118 of 2013 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, who after hearing both sides dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of the Joint Collector and the said judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, is impugned herein with the contentions that the judgment of the learned Sessions is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Court not examined or observed the delivered receipts which are filed by the 2^nd respondent herein, the Joint Collector also did not give any opportunity to the revision petitioner to examine the 2^nd respondent or receipts, but simply passed the orders to confiscate the stocks, that the Joint Collector failed to observe that in a overnight i.e. within the 15 hours where the stock of 350 litres kerosene was gone in small village and the respondent also failed to collect the material evidence, that the Joint Collector failed to observe the version of the revision petitioner as he was in charge of the alleged fair price shop that fair price shop stock was first time taken by the petitioner and due to power cut he was unable to lift the total stock of kerosene, the kerosene wholesale dealer assured that he would come with kerosene stock in next day and deliver the remaining stock and on that cause only the appellant taken kerosene stock could not enter in the stock register of the in charge fair price shop, that Court below failed to observe that the respondent herein was clubbed the revision petitioner’s fair price shop, and in charge fair price shop kerosene and made allegation that in total 357 kerosene is less even though the petitioner

¶6

explained to the respondent in what circumstances he could not receive the in charge fair price shop kerosene, that the Court below failed to appreciate or peruse the petitioner’s making representations to the Joint Collector, Nizamabad and R.D.O. Kamareddy issued a show cause notice on allegations that violations of Public Distribution Order, 2006 the petitioner replied, then after he was suspended, aggrieved by the order the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.14007 of 2013, and the same was disposed by High Court, with the directions to the RDO Kamareddy to enquire the same giving proper opportunity to the petitioner with the time bound one month, the Joint Collector as party of said W.P. without considering the orders or representations, after lapse of the W.P. time limit issued a show cause notice under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, and passed the orders to confiscate the value of the 60% seized stock to the Government. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterated the same during course of arguments.

¶7

3. On the other hand, the respondents contend that for this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing illegality, irregularity and impropriety to interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge, hence to dismiss the revision.

¶8

4. Perused the material on record.

¶9

5. Now the points that arise for consideration are:

¶10

1. Whether the impugned dismissal judgment dated 06.03.2014 in Crl.A.No.118 of 2013 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge at Nizamabad, confirming the order of the Joint Collector, Nizamabad, dated 17.08.2014 in CS6/460/2013 is unsustainable and requires interference by this Court while sitting in revision, if so, with what observations?

¶11

2. To what result?

¶12

Point No.1:

¶13

6. In deciding the same, it is apt to refer few material facts for the case purpose that the revision petitioner-dealer of Fair Price Shop No.28 who is also in charge of Fair Price Shop No.29 of Shyamala selling blue

¶14

Kerosene in black market and on 17.04.2013 on inspection by the revision 1^st respondent-The Deputy Tahasildar, it was found that the kerosene allotment for two shops is 2177 litres i.e. 1159 litres for shop No.28 and 1018 litres for shop No.29, which the revision petitioner lifted from M/s Laxmi Krupa Agencies, Armoor-the respondent No.2 herein and on verification of the stocks, there is only 1820 liters of Oil in the shop and 357 litres is found shortage. On perusal of Panchanama, it clearly reveals that the revision petitioner admitted as illegally sold it in black market. Further, the revision petitioner failed to show the stock register and distribution register during the enquiry and the above acts are contravention of Cl-17© and 17(a) of APSPDS(LSR) Control Order, 2008 as there is shortage of stock. Further before the Joint Collector, the revision petitioner admitted that he sold away 357 litres of kerosene in the black market. Basing on the oral evidence of the revision petitioner, the learned Joint Collector observed that the admission of the revision petitioner so as to his selling shortage stock in black market clearly establishing his indulging in diversion of PDS commodities and has contravened C1,17(b)(c), 19 Annexure-I of the APS PDS (Control) Order,2008 and Condition 4(i)(ii), 8,10 and 12 of the Authorisation and ordered for confiscation of 60% value of the seized stock to the Government.

¶15

7. The learned Sessions Judge, while sitting in appeal against the order of the learned Joint Collector, observed the same as clandestine dealing and confirmed the order of the Joint Collector.

¶16

8. In fact, the present factual scenario supra, it is shortage of stock of 357 litres of kerosene and as such rather than confiscation of 60% value of the seized stock, it is just to reduce the same to 30% from 60% by confirming the same in other respects.

¶17

Point No.2:

¶18

9. In the result, the revision is disposed of. The order of confiscation of 60% value of seized stock to the Government as confirmed by the learned Judge in Crl.A.No. 118 of 2013 impugned herein is reduced to 30%. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed.

¶19

___________________________ Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J, Date: 16.09.2014 B/o Vvr

Sri Gangawath Pantha v. The Deputy Tahsildar, (Enforcement)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gangawath Pantha v. The Deputy Tahsildar, (Enforcement)

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

Raparthi Pentaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Bandi Venkatnarayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C.Surendran, Vs Govt. of India

Manne Rajasekhar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Golla Ramakrishna Vs The State of A.P.

Mohammed Javeed Shaik , Shaik, Vs State of Telangana