APHC010133152019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE 20 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 474 OF Between: 1. RAMANJANEYA RICE FLOUR MILL, REP. K.RAMUNAIDU S/O APPALASWAMY, AGE 45 YEARS, R/O JINNAM VILLAGE, GJAPATHINAGARM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DIST. 1. STATE OF AP, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADES, REP.BY TAHSILDAR, GAJAPATHINAGARAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DIST. Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Cr Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram Dist., passed in CrI.A.No.51 of 2018 dt 21 Joint Collector and Additional District magistrate Vizianagaram in CC No 202/2016 dt 22.02.2018 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of certified copy of CC.No.202/2016 dt:22 file of Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram Dist 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 474 OF 2019 RAMANJANEYA RICE FLOUR MILL, REP., BY ITS PROP K.RAMUNAIDU S/O APPALASWAMY, AGE 45 YEARS, R/O JINNAM VILLAGE, GJAPATHINAGARM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DIST. ...PETITIONER AND STATE OF AP, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI STATE OF ANDHRA PRADES, REP.BY TAHSILDAR, GAJAPATHINAGARAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DIST. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Cr Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram Dist., passed in 21-12-2018 confirming the order passed by the learned Joint Collector and Additional District magistrate Vizianagaram in CC No 202/2016 dt 22.02.2018 and pass Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of certified copy of CC.No.202/2016 dt:22 file of Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Vizianagaram, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO 2019 BY ITS PROP K.RAMUNAIDU S/O APPALASWAMY, AGE 45 YEARS, R/O JINNAM VILLAGE, GJAPATHINAGARM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DIST. ...PETITIONER STATE OF AP, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT STATE OF ANDHRA PRADES, REP.BY TAHSILDAR, GAJAPATHINAGARAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DIST. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram Dist., passed in 2018 confirming the order passed by the learned Joint Collector and Additional District magistrate Vizianagaram in CC No Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of certified copy of CC.No.202/2016 dt:22-2- 2018 on the file of Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Vizianagaram, 2 IA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased be pleased to Direct the 2nd respondent to refund the deposited amount of Rs.8,90,000/- paid through challana dt:29-1-2018 by accepting Bank Guarantee for the same amount, pending disposal of the main Revision, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Order : The Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C, challenging the Judgment dated 21.12.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2018 by the learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, whereby and wherein, the order of the learned Joint Collector –cum- Additional District Magistrate, Vizianagaram passed on 22.02.2018 in C.C.No.202 of 2016- G6, ordering for confiscation 100% seized stock to the government exchequer and an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed against the persons, who are carrying PDS rice towards fine. 2. Mr. M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner while reiterating the grounds in the revision submits that there was no restriction on the movements of the PDS rice as on the date of alleged incident. To buttress this contention, he also relied on a decision of coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.35945 of 2018, dated 03.10.2024, wherein by relying the decision 3 of Division Bench in “Maimuna Begum v. State of Telangana and others”1, the Writ Petition was allowed. Learned counsel for the Petitioner request to pass appropriate orders by allowing the Criminal Revision Case. 3. No doubt, this Court in Maimuna Begum’s case held that consequential penal action for contravention of clause 17-A of the A.P State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, which deals with interruption or interference with distribution of the scheduled commodities is attracted where there interruption of food grains from FCI godown till it reaches the end beneficiary i.e cardholder and the provision does not comprehend any activity once it reaches the cardholder. Indeed, if the PDS rice was interrupted before it reaches to the end beneficiary, the control order would apply. 4. Per contra Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed to allow the Criminal Revision Case, as the charges are well established by learned Joint Collector and learned Sessions Judge rightly dismissed the Criminal Appeal. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 6. Now the point for consideration: “Whether the judgment in C.C.No.202 of 2016- G6, dated 22.02.2018 on the file of the learned Joint Collector –cum Additional District Magistrate, Vizianagaram, which was confirmed in C.A.No.51 of 2018, dated 21.12.2018 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, confiscation or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 1 2006(2) ALD (Crl.) 684 4 7. The Tahsildar, Gajapathinagaram submitted a report under Section 6(A) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for brevity ‘the E.C.Act’) to the learned Joint Collector submitting that there were variations of the stock as per the B-Register and also stocks found on the ground. The variations are 53.6 quintals Paddy; 127.6 quintals of rice and 5 quintals of broken rice. 8. Learned Joint Collector, after issuance of notice as contemplated under Section 6(A)(1) of ‘the E.C Act,’ called for explanation and an explanation was submitted. Three charges were framed, which read as follows: CHARGE No.1:- Being a responsible rice miller he has purchased PDS Rice @ 17/- per kg from petty vendors and doing clandestine business with the subsidy rice for his personal gain which is illegal and violation of rules framed by the Govt., Hence, the charge. CHARGE No.2:- As per the report of the Tahsildar, at the time of seizure of Rice, being a responsible rice miller he has not maintained records properly and violated clause 16 of A.P.Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. Hence, the charge. CHARGE No.3:- Being a responsible rice Miller he has stated that PDS Rice have been delivered to the FCI under CMR Rice and kept the custom milling rice in the mill. The delivery of PDS rice as CMR rice leads severe violation of rules and also violated the conditions of the agreement made under CMR. Hence, the charge. 9. With regard to Charge No.1, it is alleged that the Petitioner being the responsible Miller had purchased PDS rice at Rs.17/- per kg from the petty vendors and doing clandestine business with the subsidy rice for his personal 5 gain, which is in violation of Rules framed by the Government, which Rule has been violated had not mentioned in the Charge Memo. Therefore, the Charge is a defective charge. When it is a defective charge, no conclusions can be drawn or inferred. 10. With regard to Charge No.2, it is alleged that as per the report of the Tahsildar at the time of seizure of the rice, the Petitioner being a rice miller had not maintained proper records and violated the Clause 16 of A.P.Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 (for brevity ‘the Levy Order’). For better appreciation of the case, Clause 16 of the ‘the Levy Order’ is extracted hereunder: “The A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., shall take action to ensure that raw rice as delivered under CMR is accepted by having adequate godown space at MLS points and other buffer godowns. He shall be in constant contract with the SWC, CWC, Marketing Dept., etc., and take action to get the godown space placed at their possession; in case suitable scientific private godowns are available, they may also be taken on lease/ rent. He shall also explore the possibility of godown construction through Govt. Warehousing agencies and other private entrepreneurs under PEG schemes etc., for taking on 7 years/ 5 years/ 2 years guarantee. Under no circumstances, non-receipt of CMR raw rice by the A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., for want of godown space is avoided.” 11. A plain reading of ‘the Levy Order’, it is clear that the Petitioner had got a responsibility to maintain stock of the rice mill. In the report there was clear variation from B-Register and the stock found on ground, the variations were as mentioned supra. 12. With regard to explanation offered for the Charge No.2, the explanation is not found convincing and reasonable. Even, the Petitioner at 6 the stage of C.C order and at the Appeal stage had not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate his version that he had maintained the stock register. Therefore, the Charge No.2 is held proved. 13. With regard to Charge No.3, it was alleged that the Petitioner had stated that PDS rice had been delivered to the FCI under CMR rice. Delivery of PDS rice as CMR leads severe violation of Rules and violated the conditions of the agreement made under CMR. In this Charge also, there is no reference about the clause that was flouted by the Petitioner. A Charge without necessary details is a defective charge, based on defective charge, no consequences can be drawn, as it would prejudice the Petitioner as no opportunity was afforded to submit a clear explanation. After thorough reading of the record, it can be seen that only Charge No.2 is established, for that the Petitioner has no proper explanation. 14. Be that as it may, it is not alleged that the Petitioner had indulged in similar kind of violations. This is the first case of this nature. The Petitioner is responsible rice miller, running his rice mill in Zinnam Village of Gajapathinagaram Mandal. Imposition of confiscation of 100% of the seized stock is disproportionate to the gravity of the case. In view of the absence of similar adverse antecedents reported against the Petitioner, if an order of confiscation of 100% of seized stock is passed, it would not meet the ends of justice. 7 15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to confiscate only 25% of the seized stock to the government exchequer. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, directing the Joint Collector to release 75% of the confiscation amount to the Petitioner forthwith. 25% of the confiscation amount shall be liable for confiscation to the government. No order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 20.07.2026 KK