Dismissed

Y.Sudharashan v. The Collector (Cs)

Telangana HC5 Jun 2023CRLRC/64/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging the confirmation of an order confiscating seized rice for violating PDS control provisions. The Court found no illegality in the seizure or the underlying confiscation order and saw no grounds to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was dismissed; the orders of the Collector and Sessions Judge were confirmed and remain operative.

Y.Sudharashan Vs The Collector (Cs) — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

,dE H$:risBLE sRr JUsncE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 64OF 2018

¶7

Criminal Revisron filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C to set aside the Judgment^{passed dated 25-10-20i7in Crl.A.No.112 of 2016 on the file of the court} of the Prrncipal Sessions Judge at Nalgonda, preferred by confirming the^judgment dated 16{5-2016 in CC.No.CS1144312015 on the file of the court of the Hon'ble Collector (CS). at Nalgonda

¶8

Between:

¶9

Y Sudharashan, S/o. Pentaiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ business, R/o Cheekatimamidi Village, Bommalaramaram Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶10

... Petitioner/AppellanURespondent

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . The Collector (CS),, Nalgonda District, at Nalgonda.

¶13

...Respondent

¶14

The Revenue lnspector(Procurement), O/o The Tahsildar, Bhongir Mandal,Bhongir Yadadri Dist,(Old Nalgonda Dist,.)

¶15

...RespondenUComplainant

¶16

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶17

...Respondent

¶18

lA NO:^'l OF 2018

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of 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 direct the^'1't respondent to return the Bank Guarantee Submitted by the petitioner in Case No. CS1/44312015 on furnishing Personnel Bond,^pending riisposal of the above Criminal Revision Case.

¶20

lA NO:2 oF 20'18

¶21

Petrtron u"i ' -rectror) 'ig2 0f cr p.c. prayrng that ir the circumstances stated rn the affnit ,rt frled. r,r _support of the'peiitror the F gh Corrt ,rf O, Dleased to drsper-s tur1h lire rilrng of tne ceriifieJ crpy or ,)rder in Case No CS1 l4$t2A15 Dr 1 I l5 2016 cas"reO Oy-fn"'CJL.ro.. (CSrNatgonda, in the above Crrmrna Rt:,.,r r,:rn Cas-o rn tt-,",nterLsi oiluJtiie

¶22

Counsel for the peri ic ner: SRt BOLLAM LINGAIAH YADAV

¶23

counset for the Rc,s rondents:.fllBLlc pRosEcuToR

¶24

The Court made the^,o,lowing: ORDER

¶25

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.64 OF 2018

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

I The presegjo$eyi.d6n is filed questioning the orders of the learned Sessions Judge dated 25.10.2017 refusing to interfere with the orders of confrscation passed by the Collector, Nalgonda.

¶29

The brief facts of the case are that on 07.03.2015, the Vigilance and Enforcement Department inspected the Rice Mill of the petitioner herein and found 430 bags of rice suspected to be PDS rice. Accordingly, the said bags were seized. The Collector, Nalgonda by order dated 16.05.2015 found that the petitioner has violated clause 17(A) of APSPDS Control Order, 2OO8 and accordingly, passed order^as follows:-

¶30

"8. In view of the above facts and^{circumstances, the} written explanation of the counsel for the^respondentis not convinced and it is hereby ordered for confisbation of 5Oo/o (fifty percent) of seized rice meant, for^Public Distrivution System the value of which is^Rs. 1,93,500/(Rupees One Lakh Ninet5r Three Thousand Five Hundred

¶31

-",

¶32

On ') lo h:tvinil^{rltr.oh'cclirlillcgal di ersicrLol' rice} mc,tttl li r Publit: l)istrtbtttiorl^{Sl'stcm irr llclt} oL thc (;()'(.rlt r r ltIt,

¶33

!).^'i'lr, Iahsildar,^{B-R:rrnaram/D1 T rhsiJc ar} CS), 13hongiii tslgq." h9A6]^{dircr:ted to remit thc oon rst'ttion} am,)Lrr1: o-Rs. 1,93,500/-^{(RupeesOnc Lal'h Ninety} Thr.t: l'L.usand^Five H,.dred^{Only)-lull' c:"licr:ting} frorll llt: Responclent.bv^{disposing tlLe sciz':rlrice} thr()Ll^,lr )l)en auctloll ils^{pcr lhe proctrdre lal Ic own} un<lcr 'MH 145(; CIVII-^{SUPPLIES, 8O0OTHER} RE(.lEll)l S 8l OTHER ITEMS^(DD()):ode No.l()ol ':JOlOOl) irnd to^{send the or ginalr hallans} along ,r'i h at:knorvledgmen^{ts to the officc of tL tr Dis trict} Suppll' : lTicer, Nalgonda^{irnmediately,.Accordirrglythe} cast' ts cl s1>osed^of."

¶34

Aligr cr^,:rl by the said^{orders sfr he ( )olle<:tor, the} petitioncrr.L[ p]-oached the learned^{Sessions JutiSle.Learned} Sessions Ju, lge having^{heard the petitioner founrl that there} vgas no irrep.rlarity or illegality^{in the orde rs of tt)c Oollector} and furtht:r^'.ound that the^{petitionerhas nol- p--ov.ded any} proof to slrt w that rice was not meant^{for I'l )S 1nd had}

¶35

further failed to explain as to how he was in^possessionof

¶36

said rice.

¶37

The rice rvas seized in the year, 2O15. As seen from^the proceedings, the counsel for the petitioner had not appeared earlier and thereafter, notices were also issued to^the irpelitioner, rroieilh, rt6iibes were not served.

¶38

The main prayer of the petitioner is for return of^rice which was seized in the year 20 15. On facts, the^learned Sessions Judge found that there was no illegality in^the seizure of conhscation that was ordered by the^Collector. After going through the record, I do frnd arry reason^to interfere with the orders of the Collector and^{secondlyAppeal} order passed by the learned Sessions^{Judge,which is} questioned in the present Revision.

¶39

The Criminal Revision Case fails and^accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous applications^{pending,if any, sha1l}

¶40

stand closed.

¶41

Sd/.T.SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// c-JD

¶42

SECTION OFFICER

¶43

To,

¶44

1 The Principal Sessions Judge at Nalgonda

¶45

2 The Collector (CS),, Nalgonda Dist.,

¶46

J Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶47

4 One CC to SRl. BOLLAM LINGAIAH YADAV, Advocate IOPUCJ rwo CD Copies ,\p,-

kam

{-.::y----

HIGH COURT

DATED:05106t2023

i.!. ,1::,$. -^.

ORDER

,E ST4 rF
tdi.-'
/
: ,>c(
O
( I 1s ;u ?Ml
, :)-
' .'{, il
1't
-_;.:. *-l i),

¶55

CRLRC.No.64 of 2018

¶56

THE CRIMINAI. REVISION CASE IS DISN ISSED

¶57

t *

Y.Sudharashan v. The Collector (Cs)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Sudharashan v. The Collector (Cs)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mala Choudhary Vs State of Telangana

C.D.Ravindernath Vs Srilatha

C.D.Ravindernath Vs Srilatha

The Food Inspector, Rep.by P.P., Hyderabad. Vs G. Ramesh, Hyderabad, and 7 Otrs.

Marsukolla Ramu Vs The State of Telangana Rep by its P.P

M/S. Shakthi Bio Science Ltd., Vs The State of Telanagana