The High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal revision challenging the confirmation of confiscation of seized PDS rice under the Essential Commodities Act. The court found no grounds to interfere with lower courts' findings regarding the petitioner's contravention of license conditions.
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.
NorE : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 1308.2013 in Crl.R.C.M.p.No. 2594 of 201'3 in Crt-RC No.1672 of2O13.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1672 OF 2013
Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 3gl & 4O1 of Cr.p.C., against the order dated 01 .07 .2013 passed in crl.A. No. zs oF 2013 on the file of the court of the Principal sessions Judge Karimnagar, preferred against the order dated 11 .02.2013 passed in File No. G3t152slzo12 on the file of the court of the District Collector, Karimnagar.
Between:
V_.Shoba,_Wo Manohar, Occ Proprietor, Lavakusha Traders, Clo Vtjaya Krishna Modern Rice Mirs, R/o Huzurabad u,,n?.:r:,lll"A1?H;b"lffillSg;:r?:.,1i
AND
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Shravan Kumar Representing Mr K. Venu Madhav
Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: Sri T. Mahender Rao
The Court made the following:
)
I
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.L672 OF 2013
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by thepetitioner aggrieved by thejudgment dated01.07.2013 in CriminalAppeal No.25 of 2013 on the fileof the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar (for short, 'the appellate Court") confirmingthe judgment dated 11.O2.2OI3 in File No.G3/152512012 on the file of the learned District Collector,Karimnagar (for short, 'the trial Court").
i I I
'l
in the presence of the panchas. It is stated that during the enquiry, Sri V. Manohar husband of Smt V. Shoba, disclosed that he had been doing the business on behalf of his wife, who had taken Vrjaya Krishna MRM on lease from Sri Akinepa_lli Satyanarayana R/o. Huzurabad; on demand, he could not produce FGL, Stock & Sales Registers stating that the FGL is not available with him and Stock & Sales Registers are not being maintained; on verification of Mill premises, Rice was found to have been filled in bags, stored in two separate lots vtz., (42O) bags @ 50 kg in one lot and (g0) bags @ 25 kg in another lot. Apart from these Rice bags, Rice was also found in heaps. The verilication of Rice found in heaps revealed that the same was not freshly milled.
colour of the FCI. The Tahsildar further reported that on questioning about the availability of 21O.OO qtls of pDS Rice in 42O bags, Sri Vemula Manohar had disclosed that he had purchased the said Rice on 2S.OZ.2O|2 from Sai Ram Traders, Rice Depot situated at Jammikunta @ Rs. l4/- per kg and got it transported in Lorry No.AP-24-U-8556 and unloaded it in the mill premises.
4
l
I
' -1I
7 . On considering the material available on record, the trial Court videjudgment dated i 1.02.2013 in File No.G3/ 1525l2Ol2 confiscated 9O''/o of the seized stock in favour of Government under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, i955 Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an Appeal.
B. The appellate Court vide impugnedjudgment dismissed the Appeal confirming thejudgment passed by the trial Court. Assaiiing the same, the petitioner preferred thepresent Revision.
5
evidence availableon record in proper perspective passed their respectivejudgments and seeks to allow this Revision'
1 1 . On consideringthe materialavailable on record' the trial court observedthat as per the 6-A reportof the complainant several allegationsare madeagainst petitioner' She was found in possession of21O.OO qtls of Rice filled in 42O bags on which narnes of differentRice Mills and lery markings are printed; though thepetitioner stated that she purchasedthe same from Sai Ram TradersRice Depot, Jammikuntaon 25'07'2012'she has failedto produce any bill, permit or way bill showing such purchase, henceher explanation could not be accepted' The perusal of thedocuments filed by respondent No'2 such as F'I'R'' confessionalstatement ofaccused No'2/Md'Fiyaz Ahmed' remand casediary and charge sheet in Crime No'17Oof 2Ol2 of P.S.Jammikuntacoupledwiththesubmissionsmadeinhisreply to showcause notice clearly establishedthat the petitionerhas
6
purchased 210.00 qtls of PDS Rice, which was allegedlystolen by the accused persons in the criminalcase. Therefore,21O.00qtls of PDS rice belongs to A.P.StateCivil Supplies Corporation. Regarding the other stocks seized fromthe Rice MiU of the petitioner t.e., 232.OO qtls of Grade-A Rice,35.50 qtls of superline Rice and 22.50 qtls of brokenRice, it isseen that the FGL and other records were notproduced before the complainantat the time of inspection. The Xeroxcopiesof the FGL, B-registeretc. are filed with reply to the showcase notice on 20 .12.2OI2 whereas the inspection tookplace on 28.07.2012. The FGL seems to have expired after 30.09.201Oand seriousallegations suchas not producing the recordsbeforethe complainant at the time of inspection and trading the stolenstock of PDS rice are proved against the petitioner. Hence,the trialCourtrendered its judgment.
't
) )
Il
of Rice, the husband of the petitioner could not give any explanation abcrut the availability of other stock i.e., 232 quintals of grade-A Rice, 35.50 quintals of super fine Rice and 22.50 quintals of broken Rice, in the Rice Mill and failed to produce the food grains license and Stock and Sales Register, though they are bound to keep all the records and books relating to the transactions of purchase, sale or storage for sale in the business premises and make them readily available to the inspecting Officers for cht:ck. A perusal of the copy of food grains license issued to the petitioner and her reply to the show cause notice shows that it is valid upto 30.09.20 10. Thus, the appellate Court also held that the petitioner herein, without having anv valid food grains license. \rras indulging in clandestine business by purchasing PDS Rice and was not maintaining the statutory Stock and Sales Register. Thus, the petitioner contravened the conditions 3(t )(a)(b)(c)(d),7(1) of the Form-B License issued under the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008.
E
\
which she was on bail during trial, pending Revision. Later, the matter underwent several adjournments.
ft
15' Accordingly, this crimina-r Revision case is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/. B. SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAi' //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER
To,
1 The Principal Sessions Judge, at Karimnagar. _ll:D]rlr"i Coilector,Karimnaga r. 3 1ff",:3:r:iiJijicProsecutor, Highcourt for the state of reransana 4 One CC to Mr K. Venu Madhav Advocate IOPUCI 5. 9n" 99to Srir Mahender n""ear#t.i.i*f 6. two CD Copies DL/gh
I
-!,KP,r
HIGH COURT
DATED:2711112024
ORDER
CRLRC.No.'|672 ot 2013
i ri,: :;?/r/ €
k
Iti 1 3 riB ?025
i)
* *
O,1- s PA.T cS
DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE.
@,
W
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the well-considered judgment of the appellate court confirming the confiscation of seized PDS rice warrants interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
V. Shoba
The State of A.P.
Choilleti Shankaraiah
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
