Yelishetti Sathish Babu v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that rn the circumstances stated tn the affidavit filed therewith, the Hrgh Court may be pleased to rssue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MNDAI\IUS to declare the FIR Crime NO. 145120160r, the frle of P.S. Husnabad, Karimnagar District dated 15-5-2016 and also to declare lhe actron of the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 in seizrng the rice of 178.70 Quintals under a cover of Crime and Occurrence Panchanama dated 7-6-2016 as illegal, arbitrary violative of Article t9(t )(g) of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 5 to release the 178.70 Quintals of rice seizeC in Crime No. 145 of 2016 on the file of the P.S. Husnabad, Karimnagar District in favour of petrtioner. l.A. NO: 1 oF2017(WPM P. NO: 37391 0F 2o17l Petition undor section r 51 cpc praying that in th,) circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ir-r support of lhe pet jtion, the High t;c urt may be pleased to direct the Respondents 2 to 5 to rerease 17g.70 Qurnta s of rice in favour of the petitroner seized in Crime No 145 of 2016 on the file, of the p.S Karimnagar District pendrng disposal of the main Writ petitron. Husnabad, Counsel for the petitioner : SRI SOMAVARAPU SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents No.1&4 : Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No.2,3&5 : Gp FOR CIVIL SUppLIES The Court made the following: ORDER i i I I - s :r-r€-_a,,{_:-: .._. w THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION 0.30017 ot2017 ORDER This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: " ..lo issue an appropftale writ, order or dtreclion more pafticularly one in lhe nalure ol Writ ol Mandamus to declare lhe FIR Crime NO.145/2016 on the file of P.S. Husnabad, Karimnagar District dated 15-05-2016 and also lo declare the ac|on of lhe respondents Nos.2 lo 5 in setztng lhe ice of 178 70 Quinlals under a cover of Crime and Occurrence Panchanama dated 07-06-2016 as illegal, ahilrary, violalive of Atlicle 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of lndia and consequenlly direcl the Respondenfs 2 b 5 lo release the 178.70 Ouinlals ol nce setzed tn Crime No.145 of 2016 on the file ol lhe P.S Husnabad, Karimnagar Dislflct in [avour of petilioner and pass... "

2. Heard Somavarapu Satyanatayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the registration of

3. Crime No. 145 of 2016 on the file of Husnabad Police Station, Karimnagar District, against the petitioner is illegal and without jurisdiction. lt is further submitted that the confiscation oI 178.70 quintals of rice under a mediator's report dated 07.06.2016 is arbitrary and contrary to law. Hence, the petitioner prays for appropriate orders, including the release of the seized rice or its value. He further contends that the alleged offence is stated to have been committed on

07.06.2016, whereas the provision under which prosecution is sought to be initiated, Clause 17(e) ot the Telangana State Public Distribution Sysfem (Control) Order, 2016 ("the Control Order") was brought into force only on 19.08.2016. Therefore, as on the date of the alleged ! incident, the said clause had not yet come into operation. Consequently, the alleged act could not constitute an offence under the Control Order. lt is thus urged that the registration crf the crime, the ensuing proceedings, and the seizure and confiscatron of rice are without legal foundation and liable to be set aside.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Honre fairly admits that Clause 17(e) of the Control Order came into force on 19.08.2016. However, he submits that following the seizure of rice, the concerned District Collector. exercising powers under Sectr:rr 6(A) of the Essenlla/ Commodities Act, 1955 ("the EC Act"), aucrioned the seized stock on 27-07.2019. He further submits that this Coul, in a batch of similar writ petitions, has quashed prosecution procer:dings where the alleged offences predated the introduction of Clause 17(e), recognizing that penal provisions cannot operat€ retrospectively. Hence, prays for passing appropriate orders in the pres;ent case in line with the settled legal position.

5. lhave perused the material placed on recorc and considered the submissions of both learned counsel

6. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No. 3 in ,l,ime No. 145 of

2016. As per the prosecution's version, on 15 05.2C i 6 the petitioner allegedly purchased rice meant for distribution under the public Distribution System (PDS) from cardholders and tair price shop J dealers in Hasanparthi area at Rs.7/- per kilogram and sold the same to one Yelisetti Sathish Babu at Rs.13/- per kilogram, thereby earning a margin of Rs.6l per kilogram. The rice was seized in transit, and a case was registered. The prosecution relies upon Clause 17(e) of the Control Order, 2016, which penalizes any person found purchasing PDS rice from cardholders, fair price shop dealers, or any other unauthorized source.

7. Admittedly, Clause 17(e) of the Telangana State Public Distribution Sysfem (Control) Order, 2016 was notified and came into force only on 19.08.2016, whereas the alleged transaction occurred on 1 5.05.2016. Hence, on the date of the alleged act, the said penal clause was not in existence. lt is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence, reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay (AlR 1951 SC 128) and Sfate of Punjab v. Mohar Singh (AlR 1955 SC B4), that a penal provision cannot be given retrospective operation unless expressly provided by statute. ln the absence of any such legislative intent, no person can be prosecuted for an act which was not an offence on the date it was committed B. Accordingly, as Clause '1 7(e) was not in force on the date of the alleged purchase, the act attributed to the petitioner does not constitute an offence under the said provision or under any other ( { .'l existing clause of the Control Order. Consequen,y, th: continuation of the prosecution in Crime No. 145 of 2016 is devoid or, legal basis and is liable to be quashed. The confiscation proceedings, being consequential to such prosecution, cannot be sustaine,l in law. L ln light of the above discussion, the proceedings irritiated against the petitioner in Crime No. 145 of 2016 are hereby cuashed. As the seizure of rice was not legally sustainable, the petilioner becomes entitled to restitution of the prope(y or its value. lt is, however, reported that the seized rice was auctioned by the competent authority under Section 6(4) of the Essentra/ Commodities Act. 1955. Therefore, respondent No. 2 is directed to refund to the petitilner the value realized from such auction, along with interest at the rate of 6(,/o per annum, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10 ln the above terms, this Writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, pending if an y, shall stan,J closed \ To, //TRUE coPy// SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT ESlsrRAR SECTIOX OFFICER I?:J:;:[a Secretary' Department of Home, r S Secret: riar Buirdings The corrector (civil Suppries), Siddipet, Siddipet District (ll; rimnagar) The District Supply.officer, Siddipet, Siddipet District (Kari xnaqar) The Station Hor-rse Offrcer, Husnabad po|ce Station, Karirn tagar District. J[:,ti,',i:ii;'":!3'i]' off''"' c ivir S uppries, Siddipet. s rc l i per 2 3 4

5. E-Ec,i...*.--- t - \

6. One CC to SRt SOTVAVARAPU SATYANARAYANA, Advocate. [OPUC] 7 Two CCs to GP FOR HOIVE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 8 Two CCs to GP FOR CIVIL SUppLtES, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

9. Two CD Copies. BSK BS HlGH COURT DATED:0911012025 I I i I ORDER WP.No.300'17 of 2017 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1il.l .S 06 lou 16 i )Fs PAT Ctr€o , <1 ) ) t la{ 6l