Dismissed

Sri G.Srinivas, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp and 2 Others

Telangana HC2 Feb 2023CRLRC/1806/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against a Sessions Court order confirming the confiscation of domestic and non-domestic LPG cylinders. The court held the petitioner failed to prove credible evidence of black marketing, rejecting the claim of irregularities in the stock audit.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case No.1806 of 2008 dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sri G.Srinivas, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp and… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ss ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION O: 1806 OF 2008

¶7

Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated. 21-01-2008 made in CMA.2|2OO7 on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar Confirming the Order of the Joint Collector dt: 1-12-2006.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri G.Srinivas, Manager, M/s. R.R.Enterprises, L.P-G. Deale(B.P.C.)Nagole, R.R. District.

¶10

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of A.P. rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderaba(.,

¶13

The District Supply Officer, R.R. District.

¶14

The Joint Collector, R.R. District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A ANANDA RAO(NOT PRESENT)

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1806 OF 2OO8

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Criminzrl Revision Case is filed by the petitioners under Sections 397 and 40 i of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') aggrieved by the Judgment dated 2l.Ol.2OO8 in Crl.App.No.O2 of 2007 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Rang:rreddv District at LB Nagar, confirming the Order-s dated 0i.12.2006 passed in 6-,,{ Case No.A7 1235/2006 by the learned Joint Collector, Rangareddy District.

¶23

Heard Sri Mutl-r1 ala Muralidhar, learned Additional F\rblic Prosecutor lor the Respondents/ State. No representation on beha1f of the petitioner. Perused the record

¶24

The facts in brief are that on 27.07.2006 on credible information that revision petitioner herein is indulging in clandestine business and diverting domestic LPG Cylinders into black n-rarket and cr.eating artilicia-l scarcity. The District Supplies Officer, Rangareddy District along with his staff. surpri sed the said business premises ,/ I

¶25

)

¶26

bealing No.1O2/3-36, Sai Nagar Colony, Nagole, Uppal Mandal, Rangareddy District and found the following stock variations:

¶27

Domestic		Full	Empty
Openingbalance		223	388
Received		NIL
Total		223
Today sales		144	144
Balance		79	532
Defcctive		J
Balance		82
Physically available		83	541
Inthegodown	-	+1	+1IVariation
Non-Domestic		Full	Empty
OpeningBalance		27	63
Receipts		NIL
Total		27
TodaySa-le		1	1
Balalce		26	64
Asperground balalc	e-	26	10
		NIL	(-)54 Variation

¶28

On realizing the contraventions, variations the District Supplies Offrcer, Rangareddy District, has seized g3 filled domestic cylinders, 541 empty domestic cylinders ald 26 filled non-domestic cylinders and 1O empty non-domestic cylinders under the cover of panchanama. A show-cause notice dated 2a.O8.2OO6 and 24.11.2006 and an interim disposal order dated 28.08.2006 was issued pending 6-A case to dispose of the 83 field domestic cylj4ders and, 26 ,/

¶29

\ \

¶30

filled non-domesric c],linders s.orth of Rs.4Z ,224 .1 O ps., and remitted the sali' proceeds in thc form of demand draJt in favour of the Joint Collector I. Rangareddy District to avoid inconvenience to the LPG consumers. Accordingly, filled cylinders were disposed of and 624 empty domestic and 36 empty non-domestic cylinders have been returned in the interests of consumers, to the Bharat petroleum Corporation, Hyderabad on their request.

¶31

The respondent has liled written explanation stating that he has not contravened the provisions of LpG (Regulation and Distribution) Order, 2OO0 and Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (License and Regulations) Order, 1980 nor contravened the LpG Control Order, 2001 and Gas Cylinder Rules, 2O04 and he has submitted in his explanation that he has got customer base of 1o,gl9 and every month he will receive 4,800 cylinders. He further submitted that a consumer b1, name Sudershan came to the dealer with a termination voucher bearing No. 9OO4O4g6g. Even though confirmation was r-rot received, on humanitarian grounds he released with service voucher for 2 cylinders and released only t c.ylinder. In respect of 11 empty excess

¶32

¶33

domestic^{cylinders,he has submitted that 5 cylinderswere at} - Nagole and^{6 were at GourellyVillage' He alsosubmitted} that he is^{following the procedurewithout any violations'In} respect^{of variations of shortageof 54 commercial cylinders'} he has submitted^{that after deducting11 cylinders the} remaining^{43cylinders have been given todifferent} commercial^{establishments for regular usage'}

¶34

On^{considering the explanation' the learnedJoint} Collectorfeltitnotconvincingandfinallya]lthe83filled domestic^{cylindersand 26 non-domesticfull cylindersare} confiscated^{1OO% in favour of the Government'In aJl 624} empty cylinders^{werealso returned to the Oil Company on} their request.

¶35

Aggrieved^{bY the same, the} Revision^Petitioner preferred an^{appeal before the learned} Principal^Sessions Judge,^{RangareddyDiskict, who after} thorough^enquiry, order of the^learned dismissed^{the appeal confirmingthe} Joint Collector.

¶36

Aggrieved^{by the Orders passed by the learned} Principal^{Sessions Judge, RangareddyDisti6t'the revision}

¶37

petltioner fired tiris crimi.ral ilevision case on the follouring ground s:

¶38

i. The Order passccl b1. the learned principal Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District, is contrary to law and evidence on record.

¶39

ii. The learned Judge ought to have seen that there is no credible information and that there is no evidence to show that there is black marke t.ing and clandestrne business.

¶40

iii. The iearned Judge c.rroneously relied on incorrect panchanama which is not conclucted at the spot and the alleged sigrratories were not exantined.

¶41

Now the point for consideration is:

¶42

Whether the Juclgmenr dated 21.01 .2008 in Crl.App. N o .O2 ot 2007 [assed UV^- tf,. ].".".a Principal S^essions Judge, Rangareddy Districf^-at Lg r\agar, conltrming the Orders dared 01. 12.2006 passed 1,p^{n C1e No.AZ/235/20()6by lhe I"r.n"d'..roi.,t} Collector, Rangareddy District, rs iable ,o U. ,., u"la.a

¶43

POINT

¶44

The scope of Revisional Court in dealing with the revision is very limited. Unless the revision petitioner makes out a case in irregularities and illegalities committed by the learned Joint Collector or the learned principal Sessions Juclge, Rangareddy District, this Court as an Revisional

¶45

--7

¶46

revision petitioner^{and there \t'ere some discrepanctestn} number of cylinders^{stated to have been availableas per the} stock records,^{therefore, explanation offered by the revision} petitioner was rightly^{dismissed by learned Appellate Court'} Considering the^{above discussion, there are no merits in this} Criminal Revision^{Case and the same isliable tobe} dismissed.

¶47

Accordingiy, this^{Criminal Revision Case is}

¶48

dismissed.^{There shall be no order as to costs'}

¶49

As a sequel,^{pending MiscellaneousApplicationsin this}

¶50

matter, if anY, shall^{stand closed.}

SDT K. DEPUTY RE

//TRUE GOPY//

SECTIO OFFICER

To, 1 . The Principal Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

¶55

The Joint Collector, R.R. District.

¶56

Two CCs to The Public Prosecutor, High Court for State of^{Telangana, at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶57

One CC to Sri. A. Ananda Rao, Advocate.[OPUC]

¶58

Two CD Copies

¶59

TJ ^a

I It

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210212023

ORDER

CRLRG.No.1806 of 2008

¶65

3 1^iltAY?023

¶66

DISMISSING THE CRL. REVISION CASE

¶67

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶68

2?
A

Sri G.Srinivas, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G.Srinivas, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp and 2 Others

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

M/S. Amareswara Agri-Tech Ltd. and 2 Others Vs M/S. a.P.State Seeds Dev. Corpn. Ltd. and the State of A.P.

M/S. Amareswara Agri-Tech Ltd., Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs. Vs M/S.a.P.State Seeds Development Corp.Ltd., Hyderabad,Andanr.

M/S. Amareswara Agri-Tech Ltd., Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs. Vs M/S. a.P.State Seeds Development Corp.Ltd.,Hyd.,M and Anr.

Ramesh Dusangu , Ramesh Kachru, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

P. Dharmendar, Hyderabad. Vs the State of a.P., Hyderabad.

Smt. K.Anuradha, Hyderabad Vs K.Satish Kumar Reddy, Ameerpet, Hyderabad and 2 Others