Allowed

Smt.P.Ratna Kumari v. The State of Ap.

Telangana HC3 Apr 2017CRLRC/903/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal revision regarding the confiscation of a vehicle allegedly used for illegally transporting P.D.S. rice. The Court held that while confiscation was onerous, it ordered the release of the vehicle upon payment of a penalty of Rs.50,000 within ten days, distinguishing the case from a cited Supreme Court precedent where a lower penalty was imposed.

What did the court decide?

Release of the vehicle by imposing a penalty of Rs.50,000 to be deposited within ten days.

Smt.P.Ratna Kumari Vs The State of Ap. — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.903 of 2017

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.01.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2016 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, this revision is filed by the

¶5

petitioner/ respondent No.3/ owner.

¶6

2. The P.D.S. rice of 100 quintals clandestinely and illegally transporting in the vehicle of respondent No.3/ owner/ revision petitioner, driven by respondent No.1 and the vehicle stated in use for sand transport entrusted by the owner. Respondent No.1/ driver and respondent No.2/ cleaner, in that process, on the request of some two unknown persons allowed to load 100 quintals of P.D.S. rice without any documents that was intercepted and after alleged explanation, the learned Joint Collector by the order dated 09.03.2016 in C.C.No.90/ 2014-CSR5, shown the vehicle value of Rs.2,00,000/ - and 100 quintals of P.D.S. rice of Rs.2,65,200/ - ordered for public auction of the vehicle by confiscation. It is impugning the said confiscation of the vehicle, the said three respondents, maintained Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2016 and the learned Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, passed a modified order to ascertain the value of 100 quintals of P.D.S. rice and directed the appellants to

¶7

deposit the said value of rice for release of the vehicle. It is impugning the same, present revision is maintained.

¶8

3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ respondent No.3/ owner of the vehicle and also the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State and perused the material on record including the order copy in Crl.R.C.No.831 of 2016 dated 07.02.2017, placed reliance by the petitioner, where the observation referring to the expression of the Apex Court in Kailash Prasad Yadav v. State of Jharkhand( 2007(5) SCC 769), the confiscation of the vehicle is unsustainable and onerous, but for imposition of any penalty. It is referring to the facts when claimed only source of livelihood to the person owned the vehicle under self-help scheme, this Court ordered therein a penalty of Rs.15,000/ -.

¶9

4. In the instant case, the facts are entirely different. The confiscation, no doubt, even in the present facts since onerous, it is just to order release of the vehicle by imposing penalty of Rs.50,000/ - within ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the Joint Collector concerned.

¶10

5. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

¶11

6. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶12

_________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J

¶13

Date:03-04-2017 pab

¶14

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶15

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.903 of 2017

¶16

DATE: 03.04.2017

¶17

pab

Smt.P.Ratna Kumari v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.P.Ratna Kumari v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. D. Nagaraj Vs the State of Telangana

Syed Ibrahim Vs Raziya Sultana

Modumpuram Rama Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

Satyala Hajarath Vs Satyala Khaja Bee

Thippannagari Sankar Reddy Kadapa Dt. Vs the State of Ap. Rep Pp and Anr.

R. Vinod Kumar Vs The State of Telangana