Partly allowed

Sri Arvind Agarwal v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC27 Jul 2023CRLRC/1967/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision in part, holding that confiscation under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act must be limited to the value of the stock stock variation between book and ground balance, not the entire seized stock.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision allowed in part; confiscation of gas value modified to 15% of the variation between book balance and ground balance only, not on the whole seized stock.

Sri Arvind Agarwal Vs the State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[^329s ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 1967 OF 2016

¶8

Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the Order dated:25-04-2016 made in Crl.A.No.29 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad, confirming the order dated 28-03-2014^passed by the Collector (Civil Supplies) Adilabad in 6-4 case No.CS6/1 79/2012.

¶9

Between:

¶10

SRI Arvind Agarwal, S/o. Sri Tej Prakash Agarwal, Aged 32 years, Occ Proprietor, Arvind Gas Agency, Bharat Gas Distributors, Bellampalli, Adilabad District.

¶11

...Petitioner/AppellanUAccused

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh through Tahsildar Bellampalli, Adilabad District.

¶14

...RespondenURespondenUComplainant

¶15

CRLRCMP. NO: 2884 OF 2016

¶16

Petition under Section 482 oI Cr.P.C.^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order the Judgment in Criminal appeal No.29 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge at Adilabad d1.25.04.2016^{passed U/Sec.} 6 (c) of the Essential Commodities Act in so far as the same is against the Appellant herein and order dt.28.03.2014^passed by the Collector^(Civil Supplies) Adilabad in 6,4 Case No. CS6/179/2012.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T. SURYA SATISH

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI VIZARATH ALI, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE H()N'BLE SRI JUSTICE E,V. VENUGOI'AL CRIMII\AL REVISION CASE No. 1967^r)F 2rJ76

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

1 This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections li97 tr. 401 of Cr.P.C., is filed br the^{petitioner, challenging} tlre^{juclg.rrent, dated} 25.04.2016,^passed in Criminal^{Appeal No.29 of} 2'014^1t5' th:^learned Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad, confirming t:1e or,le r^passed by the District Collector, Civil Supplies, Adilabad, ,n 6-A Case No.CS6/179 I201,, datecl 28.O3.2O14 whereunder the District Collector, Civil Supplies, Adilabad confiscated thr: avarlable quantily of 64 1 full gas cyl inders was modilled to that of^.j0% <:o efis cation of its value

¶23

2 Succinctly, the facts that germane for Iiling [he present criminal revision^,lase are that the petitioner he.ein i; rur ning gas agency pertaining to Bharat Gas Distribution in the name and style as M/s. Arvind Grs Agency at Bellampalli. On 09.05.201'.2 at 4.00 PM the Vigilance imfl Enforcement Inspector, Karimna,Sar atong with the Tahsildar ra ded the gas agency ol the petitiorler and on verification of th: registers pertaining to the stocJ< thr:y found variation with rege,rd to the domestic cylinders borh empty and full in between the bool< balance and the ground baiancr,. As per the register, the pctitioner receivcd i 3432 full gas c.,,linde rs ard L29O9 empty gas cylinde^-s and out of thcn-r the petition(.r issr.red 12669 full

¶24

)

¶25

gas cylinder$ arld 12507 empry c_ylindcrs and as such there wollid have been the balance of 763 full cylinders and.402 ernpty cylinrlers. But 64 I full cylinders and 316 empt-v cyiinders were available . ph-v-sically anrl thus there is variation of 122 filled cylinders and 86 empty cylinders. Hou.ever, there was no variation insofa.r as the commerciiel cylinders are concerned

¶26

3 The complainant lodged two more allegations viz., rhe petitioner is collccting more price t han the actual price of the <lomestic cylinder; the licence of the gas agency expirecl and it was not rerlewed.

¶27

So far as the primary atlega t ion that there^'was variation bet',veen book balance and ground balance, the plea t-aken by the petitioner \r,as that the variation was due to the ill-health oi their accountant and also due to healy rush of customers on ttre date of inspection, which in the givcn circurnstances is not acceptable for the reason that mere absence of the accountant and heavy rush of the consurners does not make the frgure altered. This itself shows that the petitioner is not maintaining the register properiy in accordance with t-he balancc of stock on ground and in books.

¶28

5 Further, the panchanama discioses that the delivery boys working in the petitioner are charging more price than the hxed price. The explanation given by the petitioner that the consumers

¶29

¶30

¶31

used to give some tips to the delivery boys^{is not lc'gallysustlinable.} However, thd learned District Collector as^{well as the learr:ed District} Judge have not tou<:hed the aspect of renewal of^licr:nce.

¶32

6 The petitioner is not disputing the inspectiotr and^preF,aration of panchanama or -he contents thereof and that^t he^potitioner has not raised any obje:tion thereto while acknowledging it Therefore, the action of the ccmplainant in seizing the stock is in accc,rdance with law. The petit .oner has not given proper explana tion for the variation. From the record, it is also found that thr: peti-ione: is not maintaining the reg ster referring stock available. Hence it is to be construed that the petitioner is liable for action as per^(llaus;e 9 (d) and Ciause 10 of LFG (RS & D) Order, 2000 and conditi,xs :, 6 (iii) ofAPP (L&RS) Order 1980.

¶33

7 So far as confisr;ation of the stocks is concerned, in^,Chilukuri Balaji Groundnut Decortication Mill vs. State of Andhrrr Pradesh and Ors.l the erstwlrile High Court for the State of Andlrnr P:adesh in identical circumst rnces held as follou,s:

¶34

2- The proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were initiated by the Dist'ict Clllectcr, Visakhapatnam. Alter receiving the explanation of the ;etitiorrer-, n:t satisfied with th€ same, the learned District Coll,:ctor ordert:d confiscation of 25o2,. Hov,ever, the confiscation was 25o2, of th: ,:nti:e seized stock and n,)t 25% of the variation portion of tht seizerl :;toc<. Aggrieved by the stme, the petitioncr prelerred an app-'al bebre the Principal Sessions t)ourt. The learned Principal Sessions Judge agretd with the learned District Collector that variation rvas urexplainr:d try the petitioner. He, however, reduced the quantum of thr confscaticn

¶35

'^ttRrvuT,tnT n⁶³ I zol³

¶36

iori, 25"/o to l5'7o. Rui, thc ir'.a|nr:r1 District Judgc alsc .ordcred confiscrition of 15%u ci the^{q,hoic pf} the st:ized stock alld not villuc of the 1596 of thc .zlriatiorl poriicn oI the stock.

¶37

3.. As i-iglrtll' subrnitted bl tne learnc,i Counscl for thc petitioner, confisr:ation catr be o.derccl ilr respect o{ the vanation portion of the seized sto.i( alone. The petltioner is nol iiabte to of[er explanation in respect oi^l-hc quaniit-y ol strrcl<s, rvhich rs found in ac()ordan.re with the accounts. He is liable tbr not accorrnting fcl the variatiorr portion of the stock. C:nsequently, confiscation can be ordercd onl-v in resp:ct of the value of tfie val iation portion of the stock.

¶38

The lr,.erlned Sessions Judge lenienUy r.:onsidr:rcd it ,lpplcpriate to order conliscation of 15olo. I do not cousidcr it applopriate to ieduce thc quantuin of t:o n lisr:a tiiitr fur'':hei. The crrrtfiscation shall be at 15% oniy. Howcvcr.; whcrc thr: conlisclrtiou can be in^respcr-:t of the vai-ia t ion portion of the stock onl;y', i dlrcct thai conl'rscaiion sirall be on the value of the stor:l< rvhich is found in^{variationbetween} thc book balance ancl ground i:alancc anC not the value of lhe wholc stock seized b]. the Delrr.r ty Tahsildar-, Civii Supniies, Arltrkapalli.

¶39

8 In the llght oi'the above decision. since thc confiscation can bc ordered oniy in rcspecrt of the value of the variation oortion oi the qtock, in view of the^judgmr:nr of the erstwhile High Court of AnChra Pradesh, the learrrcci District Collcctor erred in ordering !-or conliscatior. o{ lo0o.,'o of the vaiui: oi' the gas availaLile in 641 {74.2 kgs) cylinders insteerd of conliscating tlle value of the stock u,hich is fqund in variation betr.veen the book balarrce and ground baiance. Hqwever, the learned Districr .ludge. while confirming tl-re order dated 28.03.2O14 passed by the District Ccll.jctor (Civil Suppiies),

¶40

modified the confiscation ol 1O07n rralue ol the gars le in 641 full cJ,linders seized to 50o/o of its value anci directed ct Coilector to refund the renraining 5O% of the value of the petitioner.

¶41

9 However, in th: light of the ohservations rnadc by tlre er:;trvhile High Court of And hra Pradcsh. in Chilukuri Balaji Grou ndnut Decortication Mill^.rs. State of Audhra Pradesh (l supla) I cleem it nppropriate to order confiscaticn in respcct of thc variaticn poltion of the seized stock irlone- The petitioner is not lial-,le to olfer explanation in resp,:ct of the quantity of st<;cks, vrhich i-.r found in accordance with the accounts and he is liable for rot ac:oun:ing for the variation portic n of the stock.^{'I'herefor,:,} confisca lion r-'an l-,e or,iererj ,:nly in resp(:ct of thr: value of the variation rri,rl ion of thc stock.

¶42

10 Accortlingiy, this climinal re'rision r,:iise is allcvre:l in pari., direcl-ing confiscaticn of the value of the ga,s lvhich is fcurrrl in variatior-r bet.rveen trr: book balancc and ground bzLlanc< 5ut not the valr-re of the rvhole s tock seizecl by thc Civii Sr-r1;plie .; Deper'trr(inr.

¶43

1 I Miscellaneoit s uetitions if a.ni, pc.rrdirrg i:r i-hi ; ci'inriral rcvi:ril;n

¶44

, _^{ca.se shaii stand,.;lcsr:d}

¶45

Sd/- M, RAMANA^KRISHNA DEfU-'Y REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'

F',

':jEC:TION OFFICER

To,

1 . The Principal Siessions^{Judge,Adilabad. (with records, ii any)}

¶51

The Collector^{(Civil Supplies)Adilabad. (with records, if any)}

¶52

Two CCs to th:^{PublicProsecutor, High Court for the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad.(O JT)

¶53

One CC to SRIT. SURYA^{SATISH, Advocate} [OpUC]

¶54

Two CD CoPic,s

turrly/

I L

HIGH COURT

DATED:27107^t2023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1tt67 of 2016

¶62

f ,r.
<br>4
JJ) 13 SEPzM
,o.
t'l
\i t.- <)
.-'",:'r<br>'... ,.-'-j

¶63

THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS ALLOWED IN PART

¶64

¶65

Sri Arvind Agarwal v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Arvind Agarwal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gogikar Rakesh Vs Gogikar Swetha

Chityala Akhil Vs State of Telangana

Syed Siraj Ali, Hyd Vs Mohd. Osman, Hyd and Ano

Mohd.Riyazoddin, Medak Dt., Vs Smt. Jabeen Begum, Medak and 4 Othr, Rep. Pp.

M.Mahendar Vs The State Of Telengana

P. Maheshwari , Mahalaxmi Vs the State of Telangana Rep. by Its P.P and Another