In a criminal revision, the High Court maintained the petitioner's conviction for violating the Seeds Control Order but remitted the sentence to the period already undergone, overriding the sub-judice custodial term.
Conviction maintained; sentence of rigorous imprisonment reduced to period already undergone.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[325e I
directed to be releasedon bail vide Court Order dated Bail Slip : The Accused 3OlO3l2OO7 in MP No.657 of 2007.
IN THE COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTHDAYOF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND ANDTWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL REVISION CASENO: 1966 OF 2007
Criminal Revision CaseunderSections397 & 401 of Cr.P.C againstthe ! Judgment dated OglOlt2OO6made in Crl.A.No.6of 2OO2 on the file of the Courtof the ll Additional SessionsJudge, Mahabubnagarpreferedagainst the Order passed in CC No.260/99 dated2Ot12t20O1on the file of the Courtof the JudiciallVlagistrate of First Class, at Shadnagar.
Between:
D.lnna Reddy, S/o. JogiReddY
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESP.NDENTS
For the Petitioner : SRI RAMACHANDERRAO VEMUGANTI,Advocate
For the Respondents: SRI MUTHYALA MURALIDHAR, THE ADDITIONAL PUBLICPROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:ORDER
E:.,
'ffi
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
20,07
ORDER:
This criminal Revision case is filed by the petitioner under section 397 and 401 of the criminal procedure code r97 3 , aggrieved by the Judgment dated 09. o I .2006 in cRL.A.No.6 of 2oo2 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar, confirming the Judgment dated 2o.12.2oo1 passed in c.c.No.26o of rggg by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First class at shadnagar, wherein the accused is convicted for the offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of clause 13 (1) (a) and clause 18 (21 ot the seecls (controt) order, 1983 ernd sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,0o0/- in default to suffer simple lmprisonment for a period of three months.
The Revision petitioner/accused is the licensee of the shop under the narne M/s.sandhya Seeds and is the
-..#t--i* t
E'i
2
authcrized distributor ofcottonseeds Paras-Brahma varietv and the said seedswere underdemand, 4OOO packets of the cotton seeds were allottedby HindustanLeverLimited', thereby, the Commissionerand Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh videLetter dated 27.O5-L999allotted 4000 packets to MahaboobnagarDistrict throughDistributorpoint at Shadnagar. Therevision petitioner has acknowledged the receipt of the said seedsthoughhe has not submitted arrival report to the Joint Directorof Agriculture, Mahaboobnagar, and Seeds Inspector,Shadnagar and also to the Assistant Director of Agriculture.The revision petitionerhas deliberately distributedthe cotton seeds to the dealers and thereby contravenedthe clause13 (1) (a) and clause 18 (2) of the seeds (controiiorcier, 1983, thereby committed an offence und.er Section7 of the EssentialCommoditiesAct, 1955.
3
the revision petitioner has distributed seeds without informing the authorities, pw2 has immediately went to the shop of the accused but it was closed on rr.06.1999 and 18.06.1999, Pw2 seized the bills and books of shop relating to the cotton seeds under the cover of panchanama in the presence of PW3 mediator and another person by following procedure. Pw2 issued show-cause notice to the revision petitioner/accused on 19.06. Lggg but the accused faited to give reply, thereby, contravened the Clause 13 (1) (a) and clause 18 {21 of the seeds (control} order, 1983, thereby committed an offence under section T of the Essential Commodities Act, 19SS.
04 - The complaint was taken on fiIe by the rearned Magistrate for the offence under clause 13 (1) (a) and clause 18 (21 of the Seeds (control) order, 1983, against the accused. During the course of trial, the prosecution
examined Pwl to pw4 and got marked Exs.pl to pz. on behalf of the revision petitioner, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. The triar court on con-sidering the materiar on record, ultimately, found the R
4
revision petitioner foundguilty for the cffenceunder Section 7 0f the EssentialcommoditiesAct, 1955 for contravening the clause 13(1) (a) and clause 18 (2) of the seeds (control) Order, 1983 andsentencedtoundergo Rigorous Imprisonment fora period of six months and further directed to pay fine ofRs.5,OO0/-indefault tosuffer simple Imprisonmentfor a period of threemonths'
05.Aggrieveclbythesame,thepresentCriminal Revision Caseis iiledon the foliowing grounds:
i.BoththeCourtsfailedtoconsiderthatthe revision petitionerhas informedabout arrival of paras brahma cottonseedsto the authorities'
ii. The learned.Judges ought to have seen that there are inimical termsto the accusedwith PW3 in the salne business and incollusionwith PW2 a false case has been foisted againstthe accused.
iii. The evidenceof PWl to PW4 is not trustworthy and there are materialcontrad.ictions and thereby convicting the revision petitionerbasing on such evidenceisnot sustainable under law.
5
iv- The trial court failed to consider that there is no complaint made by the person and the revision petitioner has conducted business strictly in accorda.nce urith rules.
Whether the Judgment dated O9.O L.2OO6 in cRL.A.No-6 of 2oo2 on the fite of the learned II Additional sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar, confirming the Judgment dated 20.12.2o01 passed in c.c.No.26o of 1999 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First class at Shadnagar, is liable to be set side ?
P OINT:
OB. Section 13 of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983
reads as under:
6
"lnspectionand Punishrnent: (1) An Inspector may withaview tosecurlng compliance withthis Order- (a) require any dealerto give any inforrnation in his possessibn wittrrespect to purchase,storageand sale of seeds by him; (b) enter upon and searchany premises'u"'here any seed is storedor exhibited for sale to ensure compliance withthe provisions of this Order;
(c) draw samples of seedsmeant for sale, export and seeds imported,and send the same in accordance with the procedurelaid down in Schedule I, to a laboratory notifiedunder the Seeds Act, 1966 (5a of 1966) to Lnsurethat the sampleconforms to standard of quality ' (.ti seize claimed;or rletain any seed in respect of which he has reason to believethat a contraventionof this Order has been committedor is beingcommitted; (e) seize any books ofaccountsor document relating to any seed inrespect of which he has reason to believe that a contraventionof this Order has been committed or is beingcommitted.
Provided that theInspectorshall give a receipt, in respect of thebooks of accounts or documents seized, to theperson from u'hom thel' have been seized.
Provided further that theseized books of accounts or documentsshall be returnedto the person from whom the samehad been seized after copies thereof or extracts therefromas certifiedby such person have been taken.
(21 Subject to the provisionof paragraph (d) of sub-clause (i), theprovision,of section 1O0 of the code of crimina! Procedure,1973 {2of 1974 relating to search and seizure shall,so far as may be, applyto searches and seizures underthis clause.
(3) Where any seed is seized byan Inspector under this clause, he shallforthwith report the fact of such seizure to a Magistratewhere-upon the provisions of sections 457 and458 of the Codeof briminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of19741shall, so far as may be, apply to the custody and disposal of such seed.
(4) Every person, if so required by an inspector, shal! be bound to offer all necessary facilities to him
7
for the purpose of enabling him to exercise his power under this clause."
"18. Maintenance of records and submission of returns, etc.,: (1) Every dealer shall maintain such books, accounts and records relating to his business as may be directed by the State Goveinment. (2) Every dealer shall submit monthly returrr relating to his business for the preceding month in Form.C, to the licensing authority by the Sth day of every month."
8
offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commod.itiesAct for contravention of Clause 13 (1) (a) and Clause18 (2) ef the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983.
"7 Penalties. - I (1) If any person contravenes any order madeunder section 3,(a) he shall be punishable,(il in the case of an order made with referenceto clause (h) or clause (il of sub-section(21 ofthat section, with imprisonment for a termu,'hichmay extend to one year and shall also be liable tofine, and (ii) in the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a term which shali not be iess than threemonths but which may extend to seven years and shallalso be liable to fine:
[Providedthat the court ffi&y, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in thejudgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a termof less than three months;]
(b) any property in respect of which the order hasbeen contravened shall be forfeited to the Government;
(c) any package, covering or receptacle in whichthe property is found and any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying the commodity shall, if the court so orders, be forfeited tothe Government.]
[(2)If any personto whoma directionis given under clause (b) of sub-section(4) of section 3 fails tocomply with the direction, he shall be punishablewith imprisonment for a term which shall not be lessthan three months but which may extend to sevenyears and shall also be liable to fine:sz [Provided that the court frdy, for any adequate and special reas<lns Lo be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment ior a term of less than three months. j
9
(2A) lf any person convicted of an offence under subclause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) or under subsection (2) is again convicted of an offence under the same provision, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for the second and for every subsequent offence for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine:sa [Provided that the court ffiay, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.l [(2B)For the purposesof sub-sections (ll, Q)and (2A), the fact that an offence under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) or under sub-section (21 has caused no substantial harm to the general public or to any individual, shall be an adequate and special reason for awarding a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months, or six months, as the case may be.l]
t(3)Where a personhaving been convicted of an offence under sub-section (1) is again convicted of an offence under that sub-section for contravention of an order in respect of an essential commodit5r, the court by which such person is convicted shall, in addition to any penalty which may be imposed on him under that sub-section, by order, direct that that person shall not carry on any business in that essential commodity for such period, not being less than six months, as may be specified by the court in the order."
L2. On perusal of the Judgment of the trial Court, it is
clear that PWl Assistant Director of Agriculture Shadnogtr, has deposed in his evidence that the revision petitioner/accused is the sole distributor for Mahaboobnagar District in respect of cotton seeds, but he has no power to distribute the allotted seeds on his own without clea-ra.nce of PWl and other officers.
10
a' 'n
-n'o'''
ll
t2
has misused the laras brahma' cotton seeds.Admittedly, there is no complaint from the farmers oranybodyin respect of misuse of 'paras brahma'cotton seeds.
L9. The revision petitioner was also stated to bein judicial custody for some period. The alleged offence took place in the month of June, L999 that is about 24 years ago Now the cotton seeds are not notified as essential commodities. As on the date of alleged offence the revision
t3
petitioner is 40 years old and now 64 years old. on account of defending the case for the last 24 years he must have suffered from mental agony with a stigma that he is found guilty for the offence.
"7 - Evidence of prosecution witnesses clearry shows that special board as required to be displaye--d under Clause 1O of the Licensing Order was not there., The
'reellE) cutlT 555
14
plea that the requisite informationwas containedin a "lu.t.cannotbe accepted. A plain reading of the evidence oi DW i(accused) and DW 2 examined to state about existenceof a slate and exercisebook containing requisiteinformation,leaves no mannerof doubt that a distortedversionwas given by them' Interestingly DW1 does not speak aboutpresenceof DW 2 at his shop atthe time of inspection'He has stated that the Boardwas hanging on a small wall affixed to the wallalthough there was no hole in it. Evidence of DW 2is differentas to the place wherethe slate was hanging.Clause 10 mandates that the special board to bemaintained to show (a) the varieties oi U.Uy food heldby the dealer from time to time in sLock ieady delivery, F)the declared pricc of each such variety of babyfood, and (c) the price at which the deale. ptopo..sto seil each such varietyof baby food has to be displayed"at or near the entrance of the place of sale". The DWs did not breathea word that ihe slate statedto be there, was displayedat or near the entrance ofthe place of sale. Even if it is accepted that such a slatedid exist, in the absenceof any evidence that itwas displayedat or near the entrance of the place of saie,it can be of no assistance to the accused.
g. The learned Special Judge has made an elaborate analysis of evidenceof P ws and D ws and has come to ; conciusion thatthe evidence of P Ws is acceptable, and hasaccordingly,recordedthe conviction. No infirmitywas pointedout to me to take a view different fromthat taken by the learned Special Judge.
9" The residualquestionis the sentence.section 7 of the Act deals withpenalty to be imposedfor contravention of anyordermade under Section3 of the Act. Sub-section(1) (z) (ii) (proviso) is relevantfor the purpose of thiscase. It reads as follows :
"7. Penalties (1) If any person contravenesany order made under Section 3:
(a) he shali be punishabie.
t5
(i) in the case of an order made with reference to Clause (h) or Clause (i) of Sub-section (21 of that section with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, and shall also be liable to fine, and
(ii) in the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to line :
Provided that the Court ffi&y, if any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months."
ln respect of orders made with reference to Clause (h) or Clause (i) of Sub-section (2) no minimum penalty is prescribed but the maximum is prescribed. In case of other orders, minimum sentence is prescribed. However, discretion is conferred on the Court to impose sentence of imprisonment for a period less than three months for adequate and special reasons.
The appeal is dismissed subject to modification in sentence."
22- Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
an authority wherein the Honourable Supreme court of India
16
in S.Chinn{rsamy and another v. Seeds Inspector,
Coimbatore and another2 held that:
2 tess (go) cutLT 555
t7
under the Seeds (Control) Order, l9g3 and the sentence irnposed by the courts below is disproportionate, excessive and harsh. 21.. The appellants submitted that, including the period of remission, they had undergone imp.isonlment of about one month. According to th.*, the ends of justice would be met if their ""rit..r". is reduced to the period already undergone. 22. The learned counsel appearing for the State fairly submitted that the State will have no objection in case whil. -"i"i"ining the conviction, the sentence of the appellants is reduc?d to the period already undergone.
24- Accordingly, with the above modification of sentence, this criminal Revision case is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
ai i I
l8
As a sequel,pending}"{iscellaneousApplicationsin this
matter, if anY,shall stand closed
A sd/-M.RAMANA OEPUTVREGI
//TRUECOPY//
CER SECTION
To
Ki.
\
HIGH COURT
DATED:08rc212A23
:]re 5TA
11 I? fl ?[23 i
ir'' .:
,<, !1./ ,7
,...'1'(t'
' .,,')1""
ORDER
CRLRC.No.1966 ot 2007
DISPOSING OF THE CRL.R.C. N4d "g.n iKqN
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned conviction and sentence under the Essential Commodities Act and Seeds Control Order are liable to be set aside in a criminal revision?
Whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is harsh considering his age and the delay in trial?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narayan Patra v. StateReferred¶98
Narayan Patra v. State
S. Chinnasamy and another v. Seeds Inspector, Coimbatore and anotherReferred¶117
S.Chinnasamy and another v. Seeds Inspector, Coimbatore and another
3 provisions across 3 enactments
D. Innna Reddy
The State of Telangana
The Assistant Director of Agriculture
D. Nagarjun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
