The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner in both CRLRCs : Sri K'Venumadhav Counsel for the Respc'ndent in both CRLRCs : Smt S'Madhavi' Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos .3061 & 30700F 2018 COMMON ORDER The Criminal Revision Case No 3061 of 2018 is filed by the petitioner-owner of rice mill to set aside the Common Judgment dated 28.09.2018 in Criminal Appeal Nos.7 and 2O of 2O1B (for short 'impugned Judgment) passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Nizamabad (for short 'learned appellate Court') wherein the Order dated

04.01 2018 in Case No CS6/21012017-1 passed by the learned District Collector, Nizamabad (FAC) (for short 'the learned District Collector'), was modified by reducing the confiscation from 100% value of entire seized stocks to confiscation of 4Oo/o of the value 02 The Criminal Revision Case No.3070 of 2018 is filed by the petitioner-driver-cum-owner of lorry to set aside the impugned Judgment passed by the learned appellate Court wherein the Order dated 04.01.2018 in Case No. CSOl210l2017-'l passed by the learned District 7 Collector was modified by reducing the penalty irnposed from Rs 5,00,0001 to Rs.51,7501 03 Thr:se Criminal Revision Cases are arising out of the same impugned Judgment and subject matter involved in both the rnatters is one and the same, therebl'. these matters are Lreing disposed of by way of a Commort Order

04. Heard Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitionr:rs and Smt.S.lt/adhavi, !earned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record 05 The case of the prosecution is that on

16.102017 at about 10:00 PM., on credible information the complairrant proceeded to the premises of lVl/s.Surya Agro lndus:ries, Srinivasnagar, Bodhan duly securlng panchas anrj noticed a Lorry bearing No. AP 24 TB 6638 (for short 'vehicle') loaded with 414 rice bags. Tl-re driver disclosed himself as owner-cum-driver of the vehicle and the said rit:e was being transported to Nanded. On suspecting that the said rice is a PDS rice, the complainanl took the mill into custody and found three lots i t I I I i e. 205, 273,32.50 and 207(loaded in the vehicle) quintals of rice. The said rice has been seized. As there was a contravention of the Clause 17(e) of the Telangana State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2O16, (for short 'TSPDS Control Order, 2016) a case in Crime No.312 of 2017 was registered 06 The learned District Collector after conducting the enquiry found that the petitioner-owner of the mill is involved in purchasing and selling of PDS rice for illegal gains and that the petitioner-owner of the mill was found in contravention of Clause 17(e) of the TSPDS Control Order, 2016 read with Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short'the Act') and ordered for confiscation of '100% value of the seized stocks worth Rs.17,93,750/- in favour of the Government and further imposed penalty of Rs.5,00,0001 on the petitioner-owner- cum-driver of the vehicle

07. Aggrieved by the said Order passed by the learned District Collector, both the petitioners preferred the 4 Criminal Altpeals before the learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court vide impugned Common Judgment modified the order of the learned District Collector confiscating 100% value of entire seized stocks to confiscatio n o'f 4Oo/o of the value So also, reduced the penalty irposed on the vehicle from Rs.5,0C).0001 to Rs 5'1,750r-

08. I'ggrieved by the above Common Judgment, the present Criminal Revision Cases are preferred by the petitio n e rs 09 L.earned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged contraventions As per Clause 2(s) of the TSPDS Control Order, 2016, the rice is scheduled commodity As per Section 3 of the Act, the rice is not shown in the schedule of the Acl. The rice involved in the present case is not proved as a PDS rice meant for public distributi'cn There was a Control Order regulating the purchase and sale of rice, whicn came into force on 28.07.2008 under Andhra :1 ) Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealer (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 and it was in force till 30.09.2014 and thereafter the same was not extended' Therefore, there is no prohibition with regard to the purchase, sale, storage and transportation of rice and paddy as on the date of the alleged seizure. Hence, both the learned District Collector as well as learned appellate Court have committed error in confiscating the rice and imposing penalty on the vehicle driver. Hence, while praying to set aside the impugned Common Judgment by allowing these Criminal Revision Qases, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Kailash Prasad Yadav and another v. State of Jharkhan and anotherl wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia at Paragraph No.12 it was held that: "12. Yet again, in Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District v. Rudolph Fernandes [(2000) 3 SCC 306], whereupon again lt/lr. Singh has relied upon, it was held: "6. ln the light of the aforesaid provisions, the second'proviso to Section 6-4 [sic 6-A(1)] is ' zooz 1s; scc 769 (lndian Kanoon) ;+ 6 requited to be considered. First it is to be stated that the proviso limits the power of the competett authority to recover fine up to the market 1:trice for releasing the animal, vehicle', vesse/ rrr other conveyance sought to be confiscaed. So maximum fine that can be leviect in lieu of confiscation should not exceeC the marl.et price. For our purpose, the relevant paft of tite proviso would be "in the case of vehicle . .. the owner of such ... vehicle .. shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of ils confiscalion. a f ine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essentiitl commolity sought to be carried by such .- vehicle". Question is whether fine should not exceed 'he market price of the seized essenti a/ commoctity or whether it should not exceed the market price of the vehicle. For this purpose' it appears that there ls some ambiguity in the section. lt is not specifically provided that in lie'tt of conliscation of the vehicle a fine not exceeding the market price of the vehicle or cf the seized essenfra/ commodity is to be taketn as a me'asure. Still however, it is difficult to stty that the measure of fine is related to the market price of the essential commodity at the date of its seizt're lt nowhere provides that fine should M.-,tr / 7 not exceed the market price of the essential commodity at the date of seizure of the vehicle. The proviso requires the competent authority to give an option to the owner of such vehicle to pay in lieu of confiscation a fine not exeeeding the market price. What is to be confiscated is the vehicle and, therefore, the measure of fine would be relatable to the market price of the vehicle at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such veh icle" 10 Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the learned District Collector as well as learned Sessions Judge have rightly considered the material on record and passed the impugned Judgments and there are no illegalities or irregularities in the said Judgments, for which no interference of this Court is needed and prayed to dismiss these Criminal Revision Cases.

11. On a careful scrutiny of the material placed on record, it is to be noted that the rice was seized by the respondent No.3-Deputy Tahsilda(CS) suspecting the --.t 8 same as 'Pl)S rice' vide panchanama dated 17 10-2017 and a complaint under Section 64 of the Act was; lodged for contravention of Clause 17(e) of the TSPDS Control Order, 2016 read with Section 5 of the Act. 12 ln this context, it is relevant to extract Section 6,A of the Act, which reads as under "6A. Confiscation of essential commodity.- (1)When= any essential commodity is seized in pursLtance of an order made under section 3 tn relation thereto, a repoft of such seizure shail without unreasonable delay, be made to the Collecto'of the district or the Fresidency town in which such essenllal commodity is seizecl and whe>ther or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collecto, may, if he thinks it expedient so lo do, direct the essenfra/ commodity so seized to be produced for inspection before him, and if he is safisfieo that there has been a contravention of the order may order confiscation of-(a)tt''e essentla/ commodity so seized;(b)any package, coverino or receptacle in which such essenfla/ commotlity is found; and(c)any animal, vehicle, yesse/ ()r other conveyance used in carrying I 9 such essenf/a/ commodity: Provided that without prejudice to any action which may be taken under any other provision of this Act, no foodgrains or edible ollseeds in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation.thereto from a producer shall, if the seized foodgrains or edible ollseeds have been produced by him, be confiscated under this section: Provided fufther that in the case of any animal, vehicle, vesse/ or other conveyance used for the carriage of goods or passengers for hire, the owner of such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essentla/ commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle, yesse/ or other conveyance.(2)Where the Collector, on receiving a repod of seizure or on inspection of any essential commodity under sub-section (1), is of the opinion that the essenfra/ commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest so to do, he may-(i)order the same to be sold at the controlled price, if any, fixed for essential commodity under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force; or(ii)where no 10 such price is fixed, order the same to be sold by public auction:Provided that in case of foodgrai,ts, the Collector may, for its equitabte distribufion and availability at fair prices, orde>r the same to be sold through fair price shops at the price'fixed by the Central Government or b'y fhe Statr; Government, as fhe case may be. f<'tr the retail sale of such foodgrains to tlte public (3)Where any essential commodity is so/d. as aforesaid, the sale proceeds thereof. after deduction of the expenses of any such sale or auction or other incidental expense's relating thereto, shall-(a)where no order or confiscation is ultimately pEssed by the Collector,(b)where an order passed on appeal under sub-section (1) of section 6C so requires, or(c)whnre in a prosectttion instituted for ttle contravetntion of the order in respect of whic:h an orde' of confiscation has been made under this seciion. the person concerned is acquitte'1, be paid to the owner or the person from whom it is seizerl."

13. lt is also relevant to extract Clause 17(e) of the TSPDS Control Order, 2016, which reads as under II "17(e) lf any person is found to have purchased the rice supplied through PDS either from the card holder or the F.P. shop dealer or any other source, he shall be liable for criminal action and imposition of penalty as may be fixed by the Competent authority."

14. lt is an undisputed fact that the 'rice' falls under the scheduled commodity but not under essential commodity. lt is to be noted that 'rice' is not shown in the schedule annexed to the Act. lVloreover, there is no mention as to from whom the said rice was purchased by the petitioner-owner of the mill. "Furthermore, except stating that the complainant acted upon credible information, there is no mention of details of informant or relevant source of information. However, to prove that the said rice is 'PDS rice', the details or particulars of any card holder, fair price shop dealer, or any other source, from where the petitioner-owner of the mill secured the said rice, are not mentioned in the order of the learned District Collector. 1,2

15. Here, it is pertinent to note that there is no proper disr;ussion or cogent reasons assigned by the learned D strrct Collector as to how he carne to a conclusion that the seized rice is'PDS rice' lt is; relevant to mentior" here that except the rice meant for public distribution, there is no prohibition with regard to purchase' sale or storage and transportation of rice and paddy So also, therer is no material to show that there s nexus between tlre owner of the mill and owner-cum-driver of the vehicle ln the absence of concrete evidence or material to show that the seized rice is 'PDS rice' and its illegal transportation, the same cannot be confiscated' Therefore. the Confiscation and Penalty Orrler dated

04.01 2018 in Case No. CS6/21012017-1 passed by the learned District Collector, Nizamabad (FAC) is; illegal in the eye of law. 16 ln view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the firrn opinion that the learned District Collector as well as the learned appellate Court have failed to observe that therer is no proper material to show that the seized r l3 rice is PDS rice. ln that view of the matter, the findings recorded by the learned District Collector as well as the learned appellate Court are liable to be set aside.

17. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the impugned Common Judgment dated 28.092018 in Criminal Appeal Nos.7 and 20 of 2018, modifying the Confiscation and penalty Order dated

04.012018 in Case No CS6/210t2017_1 passed by the learned District Collector, Nizamabad (FAC). The entire value of the confiscated stocks shall be refunded to the petitioner-owner of the mill. The penalty amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to the petitioner_owner_cum_driver of the vehicle Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed t To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER {. The Principal Sessions Judge at Nizamabad 2. District Collector, Nizamabad (FAC). 3. One CC to SRI K.VENUMADHAV Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies Svs/gh ;&i*rl$*8ia.. HIGH COURT DATED:301412025 .THF. S r€ r) ( o(J t 1 6 JUL ?M5 COMMON ORDER GRLRC.No.3061 AND 3070 of 2018 * ALLOWING BOTH THE CRLRGS M ?{