Allowed

Illendula Sanjeeva Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Sept 2022CRLRC/917/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court allowed the revision, setting aside a Sessions Court judgment and Collector orders regarding the confiscation of seized rice stocks and a lorry. The Court ruled that no objection exists to releasing the seized items as they fall under a prior regime not constituting an offence.

What did the court decide?

The lower court judgment and Collector's orders were set aside; seized stock and vehicle are to be returned to owners.

Illendula Sanjeeva Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[^321s ]

¶2

I I I I I I II li l, I

¶3

I I l I

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 917 OF 2019

¶9

Criminal Revision Case Under Section 397 &^zl0l of Cr.P.C against the Judgment in Crl.A.No.117 of 2016 dated 17.04.2018 on the file of the Cou( of the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam. Preferred against the Order in M.C.No.10 of 2016dated 13.05.2016 on the file of the Court of the Joint Collector, Khammam.

¶10

Between:

¶11

1 . lllendula Sanjeeva Kumar, S/o Jagadeeswar, aged 37 years, Partner of M/s Lakshmi Narasimha Rice lndustries, Trading Rice Miller Rl/o Dr. No. 12-99, Srinivasa Nagar, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda district.

¶12

Cheedella Srinivasa Rao, S/o Ramayya, Hindu, Aged 52 years, Proprietor of Divya Agro Food Products Komaribanda Village, Kodad Mandal, absolute owner Of the seized stocks of rice of Quintals 218.00 Kgs Flio Dr.No. 1'113611-8,11, Ambedkar Colony, Opp. Agricultural Market Committee, Kodad Town And Mandal, Nalgonda district.

¶13

Kothuru Prashanth @ Jagan, S/o Satyanaryanaa, Hindu, aged 35 years, Business, R!/o Kodad Town And Mandal, Nalgonda district.

¶14

Mood Ramesh, S/o Bichualu Hindu, aged 42 years, Driver Lorry Bearing Regd.No. AP 16 TY 4962, Fyo Kothuru Village, Nelakondpally Mandal, Khammam district.

¶15

Moresitti Ananda Rao, S/o Rama Krishna, Hindu, Aged 45 years, Owner of the Lorry bearing its Regd No. AP 16 TY 4962 Ryo D.No.4-4, BC C,olony Chillakallu vilage, Jaggayyapeta Mandal Krishna district

¶16

...PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶17

AND

¶18

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad 2. The Joint Collector, Khammam, Khammam district.

¶19

The U.D. Revenue lnspector Civil supplies, Khammam urban Khammam District

¶20

..,RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶21

¶22

lA N0: 2 OF 2019

¶23

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the operation of the Judgment in Crl. Appeal No. 117 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Prl. Sessions Judge at Khammam daled 17-4-2018 in Partly allowing the appeal by modifying the order tha confiscation of 100 Percentage stock is confirmed and imposing penalty of Rs. 4,45,000/- is modil'ied instead owner of the Lorry shall pay penalty of Rs. 50,0004 in lieu of confiscation in which the orders passed in MC No. 10/2016 dated^"13-5-2016 on the file of the court of Joint Collector, Khammam by releasing the seized stccks of 218.90 Qtls of rice and Vehicle Lorry AP 16TY 4962 to the petitioners p3nding disposal of the Crl.R.C.

¶24

Counsel for the Petition:rs: SMT. C. SUNITHA KUMARI

¶25

Counsel for the Respon,lents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER

I \

t I

/,,

THE HONOTJRABLE DR. JUSTTCE G. RADHA RANI

¶31

Criminal Revision Case No.9l7 of 2019

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 challenging the judgment dated 17.04.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1l7 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam.

¶34

Heard the leamed counsel for the petitioners and the leamed Public Prosecutor, for the respondents.

¶35

Leamed counsel for the petitioners / appellants / respondents submitted that the issue raised in the present Climinal Revision Case had been dealt by a leamed Single Judge of this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions, viz., Writ Petition Nos.40429, 40323,40328,40448 and 40502 of 2017, and the leamed Singte Judge of this Court was pleased to allow the said writ petitions by order dated 02.12.2020 and the said order of the leamed Single Judge applies mutatis mutandis to the present case also.

¶36

The leamed Public Prosecutor submitted that the seizure of the stocks in the present case is prior to introduction of ClauselT(e) of the^-l'elangana State

¶37

¶38

¶39

DT.GRR,Jcrlrc 917 201'

¶40

Public Distributior.r iiystem (Control) Order, 2016, dated 19.08.2016. and that by the date of seizurr: on24.01.2016, purchase of PDS rice from the cardholders is not an offence and reported no objection to pass the orders as covered by the rbove^j udgment

¶41

Accordingly. the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The^judgment dated 17 .04.2018 passed in Crirninal Appeal No. I 17 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammarn, as w,:ll as the orders passed in M.C.No.10 of 2016. <tated 13.05.2016 by the Joint Collector, Khammarn are set aside. The stock seized or its value is liable to be returned to the owner. The vehicle seized is also liable to be returned to the registered owner under due verification and aclcrowledgment. No costs.

¶42

As a sequel, nrir;cellaneous petitions pending if any in this Revision, shall stand closed.

¶43

SDAA.V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA DEPUW REGISTRAR

¶44

//TRUE COPY//

¶45

secrrJorrrcEn

¶46

To,'1. The Princioal Sessicns Judge, Khammam' (with re@rds, if any). .

¶47

i. iii; J"ilt Gir""t*^{A AOAiti6nalDistrict Majistrate,Khammam. (with records,} if any)

¶48

s. bne'6c to M/s.^{C. :lunithaKumari, Advocate} [OPUC]-

¶49

;: il; CCsio lre^{PutrlicProsecutor,High Courtfor the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶50

Two CD CoPies

¶51

One Spare^CoPY gbr

\s)1

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 07l0gl1l022

,( ti B1
I
c'.,
C\J O
c_l
|JJ F
ilc-
qD
A.r cr1.
o
+

¶57

ORDER

¶58

CRL.R.C.No.9117 of 2019

¶59

ALLOWING THE: CRt..R.C

Illendula Sanjeeva Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Illendula Sanjeeva Kumar v. The State of Telangana

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

Vangaveeti Madhu Venkata Ranga Rao, Nalgonda and Anr., Vs Vangaveeti Swarajyam, Nalgonda Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

Canara Bank, T.S.R.Complex, Secunderabad and 17 Others Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.by Public Prosecutor, Hyd and 2 Others

Gummala Santhosh, Khammam Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

B.Jayaprakash Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Advance Computers, Vs M/ s Ramakrishna Tele electronics Pvt. Ltd.

B. Hari Krishna Vs the State of Telangana and 4 Others