APHC010199582010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Between: 1. PUVVADA VENKATA CHALAPATHI RAO, S/O BAPISETTY, KURICHEDU (V) & (M), PRAKASAM DIST. 1. THE COLLECTOR CS 2. THE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, DARSI, PRAKASAM DIST. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. Revision filed under Section 397/401 of circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of Crl.R.C., to this Hon'ble Court aggrieved by the Orders of learned Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam Dist., passed in C.A.No.148 of 2009, dated 06.11.09 preferred against the Orders of the Collector (CS), Prakasam Dist., in Rc.CS1/6A/103/2009, dated 05.10.09. IA NO: 1 OF 2010 (CRLRCMP 374 OF 2010 Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of the Order in Rc.CS1/6A/103/2009, of the Collector (CS), Prakasam Dist., dated 05.10.09. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 338 OF 2010 PUVVADA VENKATA CHALAPATHI RAO, S/O BAPISETTY, KURICHEDU (V) & (M), PRAKASAM DIST. ...PETITIONER AND THE COLLECTOR CS, 2 OTHERS, PRAKASAM DIST., ONGOLE. THE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, DARSI, PRAKASAM THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ...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 Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of Crl.R.C., to this Hon'ble Court aggrieved by the Orders of learned Sessions , Prakasam Dist., passed in C.A.No.148 of 2009, dated 06.11.09 preferred against the Orders of the Collector (CS), Prakasam Dist., in Rc.CS1/6A/103/2009, dated 05.10.09. (CRLRCMP 374 OF 2010 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 the filing of certified copy of the Order in Rc.CS1/6A/103/2009, of the Collector (CS), Prakasam Dist., dated 05.10.09. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3369] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO PUVVADA VENKATA CHALAPATHI RAO, S/O BAPISETTY, ...PETITIONER 2 OTHERS, PRAKASAM DIST., ONGOLE. THE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, DARSI, PRAKASAM THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ...RESPONDENT(S): praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of Crl.R.C., to this Hon'ble Court aggrieved by the Orders of learned Sessions , Prakasam Dist., passed in C.A.No.148 of 2009, dated 06.11.09 preferred against the Orders of the Collector (CS), Prakasam Dist., he circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of the Order in Rc.CS1/6A/103/2009, 2 TMR, J Crl.R.C.No.338 of 2010 IA NO: 2 OF 2010 (CRLRCMP 505 OF 2010 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 suspend the operation of the learned Sessions Judge, Ongole dated 06.11.2009 Passed in C.A.No.148 of 2009 in so far as the same is against the petitioner in respect of confiscation of 11, 1/2 quintals of Red Gram Seized stock, Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RACHURI LAKSHMIKAR 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) assailing the Judgment dated 06.11.2009 in Crl.A.Nos.147 & 148 of 2009, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Prakasam Division at Ongole. By the said judgment, the order of the learned Collector (CS), Prakasam District, Ongole, in Rc.No.CS1/6A/103/2009, dated 05.10.2009, was modified as follows: “Accordingly and in the result, both the appeals are partly allowed while confirming the order of the Joint Collector of confiscation, however by modifying the quantum of confiscation of 30.75 quintals of seized red gram stock in favour of the Government to release 50 quintals of red gram and to confiscate the remaining seized stock of 11 ½ quintals to the appellant in both the appeals”. 2. Sri Rachuri Lakshmikar, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner, contends that Crl.R.C.No.337 of 2010 was filed against the order passed in Crl.A.No.147 of 2009, while the same accused filed this Crl.R.C.No.338 of 3 TMR, J Crl.R.C.No.338 of 2010 2010 challenging the orders in Crl.A.No.148 of 2009. It is evident from the orders passed in Crl.R.C.No.337 of 2010 that this Court allowed the Criminal Revision Case and directed the respondent to pay the value of Seizure stock to the petitioner, which had earlier been confiscated in favour of the Government. In the said order, there is also a reference to the Crl.A.No.148 of 2009. As per the orders in Crl.R.C.No.337 of 2010, this Court set aside the common judgment in Crl.A.Nos.147 and 148 of 2009. In view of the same, the Registry is directed to furnish an explanation as to why this case was listed again. The Registry submitted that no order was passed in proceeding sheet to connect both cases for hearing, and further, the two Revision Cases were not linked in the High Court data base. 3. Upon considering the said note, this Court heard the submissions of Sri Rachuri Lakshmikar, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 4. I have carefully examined the facts of Crl.R.C.No.337 of 2010 and the present case, and it is evident that both stand on the same footing. Therefore, the reasoning adopted by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.337 of 2010 is equally applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the order passed in Crl.R.C.No.337 of 2010 is treated as a covered case, and this Court takes the same view in Crl.R.C.No.338 of 2010 as well. 5. For the reasons stated in Crl.R.C.No.337 of 2010, this Court is inclined to pass an identical order in the present Criminal Revision Case as well. 6. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, and the common judgment dated 06.11.2009 in Crl.A.Nos.147 and 148 of 2009, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the proceedings in Rc.No.CS1/6A/103/2009, dated 05.10.2009, issued by the learned Collector (CS), Prakasam, Ongole, are also set aside. The learned Collector (CS), Prakasam, Ongole, is directed to pay the value of 4 TMR, J Crl.R.C.No.338 of 2010 the seized stock, which had been confiscated in favour of the Government, to the petitioner within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 03.09.2025 TJN 5 TMR, J Crl.R.C.No.338 of 2010 41 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 338 OF 2010 Date: 03.092025 TJN