Allowed

G. Shravani v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Nov 2022CRLRC/60/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held that under Section 64 of the Essential Commodities Act, confiscation should be restricted to the variation portion of seized stock (2.97 quintals of PDS rice) rather than the entire stock, as per the precedent in Chilukuri Balaji. The court modified the impugned judgment and directed return of the value of non-confiscated items.

What did the court decide?

Modified the judgment to confirm confiscation only of the variation portion (2.97 quintals of PDS rice). Directed the District Collector to return the value of other seized stock items.

G. Shravani Vs The State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT I-IYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENryTWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 60 OF 2020

¶7

Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of CrPC against the Judgment dated 11-'10-2019 in Crl. Appeal No. 54 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge Mahabubnagar preferred against the Order dated 25-042019 in proceedings 64 Case No.A7l290/CS/2019 dated 25-04-209 on the file of the of Collector, (CS) Ranga Reddy District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

G. Shravani, Wo Shyam Sunder Aged 44 years, Occ. Fair price Shop Dealer R/o Keshampet Village and Mandal, Mahabunagar District

¶10

.. : PETITIONER/APPELLANTIRESPONDENT

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad ...,RESPONDENT

¶13

The Collecto(CS), Ranga Reddy District

¶14

The Deputy Tahsildar, (Enforcement), Maheswaram

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶16

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the operation of the Judgment in Crl. Appeal No. 54 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Prl. Sessions Judge Mahabubnagar dated 11-10-20'19 in confirming the confiscation of 100 Perc-,entage value of the seized stocks PDS Rice Rs. 74.00 Quintals vrorth Rs. 7,400/- PDS Sugar 21 KGs worth Rs. 284l- and PDS Blue Kerosene oil 366 Liters worth Rs.^'10,6141- total worth of Rs. 18298/- vide proceedings 6A-Case No..A7l290/CS/2019 dated 25-04-2019 on the file of the court of Collector (CS) Ranga Reddy District Pending disposal of the Criminal Petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. C SUNITHA KUMARI

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

The Court made the following: ORCER

¶21

¶22

Dr. GRR, t crlrc_60-2020

¶23

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA^RANI

¶24

CRIMINAL REVISIO N CASE No. 60 OF 2020

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the^{petitioner-appellant-} respondent assailing the^judgment in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar dated 11.10.2019 in confirming the confiscation of 100%o value ofthe seized stock under Section 64. of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

¶27

As per the respondents, on receipt of credible information about diversion of essential commodities by Fair Price Shop dealer, the Deputy Tahsildar (Enforcement) Maheshwaram inspected Fair Price Shop No. 1540004, Keshampet Village and Mandal of Rangareddy District on 08.03.2019 at 2:55 PM and on verification ofground stock with e-Pos devise found variation of PDS rice of 2.97 quintals which was not within permissible limit, as such seized the ground stock i.e., PDS Rice of 74 quintals worth of Rs.7,400/-, PDS Sugar of 22 Kg. worth of Rs.284l- and PDS Blue Kerosene Oil of 366 litres worth of Rs.l0,614/-,toLal worth of Rs. 18,298/-. On 16.03.2019, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for violating Clause 17(A) of TSPDS (Control) Order, 2016. The petitioner appeared for hearing on 20.04.2019. On

¶28

¶29

Dr. GRR, I c rc_60_202o

¶30

25.04.2019, orders were passed by the District Collector (Civil Supplies) lor 100% confiscation ofthe entire seized srock.

¶31

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Principal Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. The learned Principal Sessions Judge agreed with the observation of the lcamed District Collector that variation was not explained by the petitioner and dismissed the appeal confirming the orders passed by the District Collector (Civil Supplies), Rangareddy District.

¶32

Aggrieved further, the petitioner preferrcd this revision contending that the courts below failed to consider whether the petitioner had eontravened Clause l7(A) of TSPDS (Control) Order, 2016. The Hon'ble Jr-rdge ought to have seen that whether the seized stocks were essential commodities and whether there was any contravention of any of the Control Orders passed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, the Courts below ought to have seen that there was no definition of PDS Rice and none could identi! whether it was a PDS Rice or not, the Courts ought to have seen that mere possession of PDS Rice was not a contravention of Clause 17(A) of TSPDS (Control) Order, 2016. There was no restriction of possession of PDS Rice as per Condition 8 of the license issued under AP Scheduled Commodities Dealen (Licensing Storage and Regulation) order, 2008. The principal Sessions Judge ought to have seen that it was not an appear flled under criminar procedure code, but filed under Section 6C of the Fssential Commodities Act and prayed to set aside

¶33

¶34

¶35

Dr. GRR, t crhc 60 2020

¶36

the^judgment in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2019 on the file of the Court^{of the} Principal Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, dated I 1.10.2019.

¶37

Heard the leamed counsel for the revision petitioner and the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶38

The leamed counsel for the petitioner argued on the same lines as raised in the grounds ofthe appeal and prayed to reduce the quantum ofconfiscation. She also relied upon the^judgment of this court in Criminal Revision Case No. 1389 of 2013, dated 19.07.2013 ln M/s.Chilukuri Balaji Groundnut Decortication Mill v. The Statc of Andhra Pradesh and another.

¶39

" The leamed Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand contended

¶40

that 6A case was filed against Fair Price Shop dealer. The seized stock/variation belonged to Public Distribution System which was supplied by the Government for distribution of essential cornmodities to the card holders under Public Distribution System through Fair Price Shops. Mere possession of PDS rice was a contravention of Clause 17(A) of TSPDS (Control) Order, 2016, diversion of essential commodities was also part and parcel of intemrption in the process of Public Distribution Systern and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case filed by the petitioner

¶41

Perused the record. The record would disclose that on inspection by the Deputy Tahsildar (Enforcernent) Maheshwaram, he found variation of PDS rice

¶42

¶43

Dr. GRR,^j crlrc 60 2020

¶44

to an extent of 2.97 quintals more than that of e-Pos machine and there was no variation with regard to the kerosene oil and sugar in the book balance and ground balance. But the Deputy Tahsildar seized the entire ground stock of PDS rice of 74 quintais worth of Rs.7,400/-, PDS sugar of 21 Kg, worth of Rs.284/- and PDS blue kerosene oil of 366 litres worth of Rs.10,614/- though there was no variation with regard to kerosene oil and sugar and also seized the entire ground stock of rice.

¶45

This Court in M/s.Chilukuri Balaji Groundnut Decortication Mill^v.

¶46

The State of Andhra Pradesh in Cr.P.C. No.1389 of 2013 dated 19.07.20^l3 held that:

¶47

"confiscation can be ordered in respect of the^{variationportion} of the seized stock alone and the petitioner is not liable to offer explanation in respect of the quantity of stocks, whiclt was found in accordance with the book balance. He was liable for not accounting.for variation portion of the stock. Consequently, confiscation can be ordered only in respect of the value of the variation portion of the stock.^"

¶48

The said^judgment is applicabte to the facts of this case also. As such, it

¶49

is considered fit to allow the Criminal Revision Case modifoing the^judgment in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, dated I 1.10.2019 confirming the confiscation only to an extent of variation portion of the stock i.e., PDS rice of 2.97 quintals.

¶50

¶51

DI. GRR, I crlrc_6O_2O20

¶52

I l. As such, the Criminai Revision Case is disposed of in the above terms

¶53

and the District Collector is directed to return the other items of seized stock or its value to the petitioner herein within two (02) weeks from the date of this Order.

¶54

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶55

¶56

Sd/- M. MANJULA DEPUTY REGISTRAR .*. I //TRUE COPY// e^{h^--=-}

¶57

SECTION OFFICER

¶58

To,

¶59