Partly allowed

M/S. Raghavendra Filling Station Rep., Prope.a.Padmanabham v. the State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC24 Jul 2023CRLRC/1952/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed in part criminal revision. Confiscation of 100% of seized stock value quashed. Ordered confiscation limited to value of stock found in variation between book and ground balance under Essential Commodities Act and Motor Spirit Order 2005.

What did the court decide?

Confiscation ordered only on the value of stock found in variation between book balance and ground balance, not on the value of the whole seized stock.

M/S. Raghavendra Filling Station Rep… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

IUONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1952 OF 2014

¶7

Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 1610712014 made in Crl.A.No.64/2012on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, preferred against the Order passed in MC No.175l1 1 daled 2310412012 on the file of the Court of the District Collector, Khammam.

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Raghavendra Filling Station Rep. by its Prop: Eturi Anantha Padmanabham S/o.Late Ramachandraiah, Opp District Court Khammam

¶10

...PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep.by The Asst.Supply Officer, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

¶13

.RespodenU Complainant

¶14

The State of Telan gana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and AP.

¶15

...RESPONDENT

¶16

CRLRCMP. NO: 3459 OF 2014

¶17

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 stay the encashment of bank guarantee, which was furnished by the petitioner for Rs.^g,64,021t- vide Axis Bani<, Khammam

¶18

For the Petitioner : SRI JAGADESHWAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR, Advocate

¶19

Forthe Respondents : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE H )N'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VEIIUGOP.T\L CRIMI.{AL REVISION CASE No.1952 OF 20'..4

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

1 This Crimirral Revision Case, under Sections 39,7 & 401 of Cr.P.C., is filed ty the petitioner, challenging tl-re ju,lgment, dated 16.07.2014, pass,:d in Criminal Appeal No.64 ol'2012 bs' the learned Principal Session; Judge, Khammam, confirming the r.rrdt:r passed by the District Collector, Khammam, in M.C.No. 175 t>f 2Oli, dated 23.04.2012 wher:by the District Collector orde red r:or-rfiscation of 10O% ol the value of the seized stock to the Governmer t.

¶24

2 Ileard Sri Jagadeshwar, learned counst l reprr:se:rting Sri Kowturu Pavan F.umar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Iearned Public Prrsccutor for the respondent - Jtate. Pelused the record.

¶25

3 The lacts g:rmane for hling of the preserrt cri n na. revision case, succinctly, are that on 17.11.2011 at ll.rl-5 AM the complainant alon.l with the mediators inspected M/s. Raghavendra Filling Station, K tvirajanagar, Khammam and in insp<:cti,:n found variation of two r:ategories of products i.e. exct:ss ol il64 liters of Motor Spirit and r:xcess of 1053 liters of High Speed Diesel In view of the differences. the excess stock available of L7O5i liters of HSP and 2855 lttr:rs ol l{otor Spirit, total worth Rs.9,r14,02 1 /' - e re seized by the Assistant liupply Officer, Khammam. On quer;tioning abor-rt

¶26

the said variartior-r, the pe titioner represented that the variation to thc extent of high speed diesei is within perrnissible iimits and the differer-rce with regard to motor spirit is rrray be due to the behaviour of undergrourrd tank evapcration durirrg the course of transportation and distribution. Not being satisfied rvith explanation offered by the petitioner, the inspecting authorities lifted sir samples of high speed diesel for analytical report, as per the procedure envisaged. Thus, the inspecting authorities found that the pretitioner violated clause 3(6) of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regutation of Supplv, Distribution and Prevention oi Maipractice) Order, 20O5 and accordingly submitted a complaint before the District Coilector, Kharnmam under Section 6-lr of the Essential Commodities Act.

¶27

4 On hearing the matter, the learned District Collector arriveJ ert a conclusion that the petitioner is not maintairring the records properly as well as the stock and the variation relating to Ivlotor Spirit and High Speed Diesel are beyond the permissibie limits. which gives evidence that he is carrying clandestine business in petroleum products and thus violated Clause 3 (6) of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractice) Order, 2005 and ordered^{confiscation of} 1007o^.ralue of the stock seized to the Government by^{order dated} 23.O4.20t2

¶28

¶29

5 Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner^preferred Crinrinal^Appeal No.64 of 2012 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kttammam. However, the lear:red District Judge, by^judgment dated^16.O7 .2014, dismissed the appeal confirming the order^passed by thr:^District Collecror. Hence^,he present revision.

¶30

6 The learnec counsel for the petitioner submittecl that when there was no insp e<.'tion by following the due procedu:e, tlre alle ged variations are not correct and confiscation of seized stc,cl< is contrary to law. He further submitted that confiscation of 100(/o of the value of the seized st( cl< to the Government is highly^,:xcessive and disproportionate t) the charges.

¶31

7 On the otht:r hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the procedure as contemplated under the law wrLs followed by the inspecting authorities and that the variatior-r is not nreager to consider the behaviour of the underground tank and the petitioner failed to explain lrow that huge quantity of variation irr stock took place. He further submitted that the stock register is not reflecting true and correct fe cts of the stock available.

¶32

B ln Chilukur i Balaji Groundnut Decorticat:ion IVIill rrs. State

¶33

of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.L the erstq,hile High Courl lbr the State

¶34

of Andhra Prade sl- in identical circumstances helc, as fc,[l,rws.

¶35

'^MANU/Ap/ t763l20 3

¶36

¶37

i..:. Thc proce(dings L,llder Section 6A. o[ the Ess;entia! Comn)o.litics Act, 1955 r,,ere initiatcd h) [i:c Distriut^,UoliC(:tot. Visakhapatnam. After I eceiving the explanatior.r crf the petitioner, not satisfied rvith the same, the learned Ifistrict Collecrcr ordered confiscation of 25olc. llowevcr, the confiscatiori^'\rtas 2570 of the entire scized stock and not 257, oi the variiition portiori of the se;zed stock. Aggrieved by thc same, the petitione: preferred arr appeal bcfore the Principal Sessions Court. The li:arned Principal Sessions Jrrdge agreed r', ittt the learned Di-atrict Collector that variation rvas uncxplained by the petitioner. lle, horvever, reduced the quanturn of the confiscation from 25olo to 157o. But, the learned District Judge erlso ordered confiscation of I 5olo of the whole of the seized stock and nct r aluc oI the 159,i, of the valiation portion of the srock.

¶38

l). As rightlS, subnritted by the lc,alned Counsel for the petitioner, conlis(:atiorl <;trn be ordered irr respect of the valiatiolr portion of the seized stock alone.^'I'he petitir.rner is l'lot liable to offer ext lanation in respect o[ the quantity of stocks.^q'hich is found in accordance with the a.counts. He is liable for not accouirting for the variation portion of the stock. Consequently, Donfiscation can be ordered only in respecr of the value of the variation portion of the stock.

¶39

The iearned Sessions Judge leniently considered it appropriate to order connscation of 157o. I do not consider it appropriate to reduce the quanturn of confiscation further. The confiscation shall be at 15% only. Hor,r'ever, rvhere the confiscation can be in lespect of the variation portion of ahe stock oniy, I direct ttnt ccnfiscation shall be on the value of the str-rck which is lbund in variation between the book balance and grouncl balance and not the value ol the whole stock seized by the I)t:puiy'lahsiklar, Civii Supplies, Anakapalli.

¶40

9 As per Schedule-l of Motor Spirit & High Speed Die sel

¶41

(Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractice) Order, 2005, variation in stocks in underground tanks is considered

¶42

to be beyond normal operation level when the inspection establishes that the variation in stocks in the ur-rderground tanks is beyond^+/- 4o/o of tank stock over and above:

¶43

(i) Evaporation ,/ handling losses in Motor Spirit as t'ollox's

¶44

0.750,6 on annual average sales of O-6O0 kiloliters, 0.607o on annual average sales of above 600 kiloliters

¶45

(it) Handling losses in High Speed Diesel as follows

¶46

O.25Yo on annual average sales of O-600 kiloliters, *,^{;r'20"/" on a.nnual average sales of above 600 kiloliters.}

¶47

)

¶48

(Shrinkage losses and temperature variation allowance qualltities rn Motor Spirit / High Speed Diesel to l)e taken into account wherever the salne are^{aPplir:able).} 10 Admittedly, during inspection the inspecting authorities found variation of two <:ategories of products i.e. excr'ss ol 864 liters of Motor Spirit and rxcess of 1053 liters of High Spt:ed Diesel, which is obviousiy beyond normal operation level. The petit oner has not given proper exple nation for such huge variation. Frorr. the record, it is also found thirt the petitioner is not maintaininll thc register referring stock a'railable. Hence it is to be <:onstrued that the petitioner has contravened Clause 3 (6) of Motor Spirit & High Speed Diesel (Regulatio e of Supply, Distribution :Lnd^)revention of Malpractice) Orde;', 2005 r/vv Section 6 (A) of Essentia. Oonrmodities Act, 1955. The petitioner is not disputing tne ir:speciion and preparation of panchanama or the contents thereof and that the petitioner has not raised any objection thereto uhile tLc<nc,wledging it. Therefore, the action of the complainant in seizing -he s-ock is in accordance with 12.w.

¶49

1 1 So far as c:nfiscation of the stocks is concerr.etl, t;ince the confiscation can be ordered only in respect ol the value of the variation portion ol the stock, in view of the judgnlent of the erstwhile High⁽ ourt of Andhra Pradesh, the lea rned District Collector as well tLs the learned District Judge erred in orclering for confiscation of 100% of the value of the seized stocll to the

¶50

¶51

¶52

Governrnent instead ol confiscating the value of tire stock which is f<rund in variation betwccn the book balance and ground balance.

¶53

12 Tire facts of the case on hand are identical to the facts oi the case in Chilukuri Balaji Groundnut Decortication Mill ( 1 supra). Therefore, and in the light of ttre observ-ations rnade by the erstwhile Fligh Court of Andhra Pradesh, I deem it appropriate to order confiscation in respect of the variation portion of the seized stock alone. Ttre pel-itioner is not liabie to offcr explanation in respect of t.he quentit.r, o[ stocks, which is fourrd in accord.ance u,ith thc acc()un ts arrd he is liable for not accounting for the variation portion of tlie stock. Therefore, confiscation can be ordered only in respect of the vaiuc of the variation portion of the stock.

¶54

13 Accorclingly, this criminal revision case is alkrwed ir-r part, directing confiscation of the value of the stock which is found in variation between the book balance and ground balance but not the value of the whole stock seized by the Assistant Supply Officer, Kothagudem.

¶55

14 Miscellaneous petitiorrs if any^pending in this criminal revision

¶56

case shall stand closed

¶57

¶58

Sd/-B,SATYAVATHI DEPUTY]IEGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// qD

SECTIbN^OFFICER

The Principal^{SessionsJudge'Khammam'}

¶63

z. The District The District District^{Collector'Khammam'}

¶64

z. The District The District District^{Collector'Khammam'} 3. Two CCs^{to the puo[" ili,3.""lioi,Hign court for the state of Telanganaat} Hvderabad^(OUT) 4. 6,n;"bCi;^{A; kok"'VinavaKumar' Advocate IOPUC]} 5. Two CD^Copies Kj 9r'.-41.

¶65

HIGH COURT

¶66

DATED:2410712023

¶67

,l'-/- 39 TE a) <br>4.''+
't(-
l.
.t
,l sttls8 l ,i
) \x "' il
+^ l. ,{,'t
\i1^r ./
I5rl;'.-';.1
<br>

¶68

ORDER

¶69

CRLRC.No.1952 of 2(1,1

¶70

CRL.R.C. IS CLOSEC.