APHC010413112010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 784/2010 Between: 1. KASULAKONDA GURAVAIAH, CHEEKATEEGALAPALEM[V],GUNTUR,&14OTRS., S/O. RAMAIAH R/O. CHEEKATEEGALAPALEM VILLAGE, VINUKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. MUSIRAKA KONDA REDDY, S/O. VENKATA REDDY R/O. CHEEKATEEGALAPALEM VILLAGE, VINUKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. MUSIRAKA BALAKOTI REDDY, S/O. NARAPA REDDY R/O. CHEEKATEEGALAPALEM VILLAGE, VINUKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. ANNEM VENKATA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY, S/O. YOGI REDDY R/O. CHEEKATEEGALAPALEM VILLAGE, VINUKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. MUSIRAKA BRAHMAREDDY, S/O. NARAPA REDDY R/O. CHEEKATEEGALAPALEM VILLAGE, VINUKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. KANALA GURVA REDDY, S/O. RAM REDDY R/O. CHEEKATEEGALAPALEM VILLAGE, VINUKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 7. MUSIRAKA VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/O. CHINA BALI REDDY R/O. CHEEKATEEGALAPALEM VILLAGE, VINUKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.784 of 2010 Dated 08.07.2025 8. MUSIRAKA VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/O. BALA KOTI REDDY R/O. CHEEKATEEGALAPALEM VILLAGE, VINUKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 9. MERUGU RAMALINGA REDDY, S/O. SUBBA REDDY R/O. CHEEKATEEGALAPALEM VILLAGE, VINUKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 10. ISIREDDY VENKATA REDDY, S/O. KOTI REDDY R/O. CHEEKATEEGALAPALEM VILLAGE, VINUKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 11. KOTTAM CHINA NARAYANA REDDY, S/O. LAKSHMA REDDY R/O. CHEEKATEEGALAPALEM VILLAGE, VINUKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 12. ANNAM VENKATA REDDY, S/O. YOGI REDDY R/O. CHEEKATEEGALAPALEM VILLAGE, VINUKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 13. ANNAM VENKATA REDDY, S/O. RAMI REDDY R/O. CHEEKATEEGALAPALEM VILLAGE, VINUKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 14. MUSIRAKA VENKATA RAMI REDDY, S/O. VENNA REDDY R/O. CHEEKATEEGALAPALEM VILLAGE, VINUKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 15. MUSIRAKA CHINA VENKATESWAA REDDY, S/O. CHINA BAL REDDY R/O. CHEEKATEEGALAPALEM VILLAGE, VINUKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY P P HYDERABAD ANR, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. 2. THE COLLECTOR DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUNTUR GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.784 of 2010 Dated 08.07.2025 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T JANARDHAN RAO 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, „the Cr.P.C‟), challenging the judgment dated 15.03.2010 in Crl.A.No.90 of 2009 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereby and whereunder the order passed by the learned Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur, in E.C.No.52 of 2008-S7, dated 11.02.2009, was confirmed by slightly reducing the percentage of the confiscation. The learned Collector had ordered confiscation of 25% of the seized stock to the Government. 2. The case of the District Supply Officer, Guntur, is that on receipt of credible information about hoarding of food grains, the complainant before the learned Trial Court inspected the premises of the house of Kasula Konda Guravaiah on 08.05.2008, along with the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Prathipadu, Special Deputy Tahsildar, Office of District Supplies 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.784 of 2010 Dated 08.07.2025 Officer, Guntur, Civil Supplies Revenue Inspector, Chilakaluripet, and Village Revenue Officer, Thimmayapalem Village. It was noticed that in the house of Kasula Konda Guravaiah, there was a Kirana shop and a room was adjacent to it wherein 300 bags of Redgram, each bag carrying 100 kgs, were stored, the total worth of the property was six (06) lakhs. In the enquiry, it was revealed that Kasula Konda Guravaiah/petitioner No.1 purchased the Redgram from ryots and was storing it in his room for selling the same to the needy persons for his personal gain, and he did not have any licence for doing the business. Therefore, the complainant submitted a report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, „the E.C. Act‟), requesting the learned Collector to confiscate the seized stock to the Government, and a request was also made for passing interim orders for the disposal of the seized stock under Section 6-A(2) of „the E.C. Act‟, as the goods were perishable in nature. The interim orders dated 12.05.2008 were passed. A notice under Section 6-B of „the E.C. Act‟, was issued on petitioner No.1 calling for explanation about the seized stock and confiscation of the same to the Government. The learned Collector framed a charge as under: “Charge No.1: That the respondent is doing pulses business without valid licence. Thus, he violated Cl.3 (1) of A.P.Pulses (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2007”. 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.784 of 2010 Dated 08.07.2025 3. On 13.06.2008, the petitioner No.2 to 15 others, natives of Cheekateegalapalem hamlet of Thimmayapalem Village, Vinukonda Mandal, filed a petition before the learned Collector submitting that they had raised Redgram in their respective lands during the Kharif season 2007-2008 and secured good yielding of Redgram. As they wanted to dispose of the Redgram for a reasonable price to the traders, they kept the Redgram bags in the house of petitioner No.1 for the purpose of getting good reasonable prices, as petitioner Nos.2 to 15 were to get good prices. The complainant surprised the premises of petitioner No.1 and seized the stock. Eventually, they urged the learned Collector to release the 300 bags of Redgram to them in the interest of justice. 4. As seen from the impugned order, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.12487 of 2008 before this Court, and this Court passed interim stay vide W.P.MP.No.16079 of 2008 on 17.06.2008. Later, the Writ Petition was disposed of on 25.09.2008 as withdrawn by the petitioner therein. After hearing the parties of both sides, the learned Collector found that petitioner No.1 was indulged in business of pulses without valid license. The version of the farmers was only an afterthought propped up at the behest of petitioner No.1. While citing their above reasons, the learned Collector confiscated 25% of the seized stock of Redgram to the 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.784 of 2010 Dated 08.07.2025 Government and released the remaining 75% of the seized stock, that is, 225.00 quintals of Redgram, to petitioner No.1. 5. Mr. T. Janardhan Rao, the learned legal aid counsel for petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submits that the learned Appellate Court failed to consider the claim of petitioner Nos.2 to 15, who are farmers who yielded the seized stock and kept the same in the house of petitioner No.1 for getting good prices. No opportunity was given to petitioner Nos.2 to 15 before passing the impugned order by the learned Collector, and urged to dismiss the same. 6. Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that sufficient opportunity was provided by the learned Collector while passing the impugned order, and it was clearly established that the petitioner No.1 was indulged in doing business of pulses without obtaining a valid licence as mandated by Cl.3 (1) of A.P. Pulses (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2007 (for brevity “the Pulses Order”). Therefore, the learned Collector rightly considered the complaint of the District Civil Supplies Officer, Guntur, passed the order, and the same was rightly confirmed by the learned Appellate Court and it does not require any interference on whatsoever grounds, and urged to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.784 of 2010 Dated 08.07.2025 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. 8. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.90 of 2009, dated 15.03.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur, are correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 9. As seen from the record, it is clear that the petitioner No.1 did not have any valid licence to conduct business in pulses. In this regard it is apposite to refer Cl.3 (1) of A.P.Pulses (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2007, wherein it is held as under: “No person shall carry on business as a dealer or producer or a commission agent dealing in pulses, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of license issued in this behalf by the Licensing Authority.” 10. A fair reading of the above provision, it is clear that the petitioner was required to obtain a valid license from the competent authority for doing pulses business. The petitioners, even though mentioned that they had raised black gram crop and got yielded the Redgram of respective quantities as mentioned in the impugned order, they are not in huge quantity. Even the farmers could have kept them in their houses. They 8 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.784 of 2010 Dated 08.07.2025 need not hoard them in any godown or any place of petitioner No.1. Had the farmers/petitioner Nos. 2 to 15 really yielded the Redgram, they would have kept them in their houses but not in the shop of petitioner No.1. 11. The statement of the petitioner No.1 before the inspecting officials was that he purchased the Redgram from the farmers. Surprisingly, the version of the petitioner Nos.2 to 15 is that they kept the Redgram bags in the house of petitioner No.1 for the purpose of receiving reasonable prices from traders. So, the version of petitioner Nos.2 to 15 and the version of petitioner No.1 are mutually inconsist and not inspiring any confidence. Had the petitioner Nos.2 to 15 really kept the Redgram bags in the shop of the petitioner No.1, the petitioner No.1 would have given a statement in that fashion to the officers of the complainant. Therefore, the version of petitioner Nos.2 to 15 is nothing but an afterthought. 12. Be that as it may, the learned District Collector having appraised the entire gamut of the case reasonably ordered the confiscation of 25% of the seized stock to the government. The learned Appellate Court also did not interfere with the impugned order as it was found reasonable and sustainable. At any rate, confiscation for violation of Cl.3(1) of „Pulses Order‟ was only 25% of the seized stock which is perceived to be reasonable. Therefore, the impugned order and also the judgment do not require any interference on whatsoever grounds. 9 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.784 of 2010 Dated 08.07.2025 13. The contention that no opportunity was provided to petitioner Nos.2 to 15 at the time of passing the impugned order by the learned District Collector has no legs to stand legally, inasmuch as the impugned order reflects that a counsel was engaged by the petitioners and the arguments of the counsel were heard by the learned Collector before passing the impugned order. 14. For the above reasons, there are no merits in the Criminal Revision Case and the same is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 08.07.2025 RSI 10 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.784 of 2010 Dated 08.07.2025 146 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.784 of 2010 Date:08.07.2025 RSI