APHC010440022010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 357/2010 Between: 1. M/S. KARAMSETTY RAVI KUMAR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DIST., REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. KARAMSETTY RAVI KUMAR, BUSINESS S/O. CHENNA KESHAVULU, SHOP NO. 279, S.B.M.C., ONGOLE, ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY SECRETARY CS HYDERABAD 2OTRS, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (CIVIL SUPPLIES) A.P. SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE COLLECTOR DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, (CIVIL SUPPLIES) 3. THE ASST SUPPLY OFFICER, ONGOLE PRAKASAM DISTRICT, THE STATE, REP. BY 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 Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to allow the revision case by setting aside the order dt. 27-10-2009 passed by the 2nd respondent and the consequential Judgment dt. 02-12-2009 made in Crl.A. No. 176 / 2009 confirmed to the extent of 10% of the seized stocks to be confiscated infavour of the Government passed by the District and Sessions Judge Court, Prakasam District, Ongole. 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 530 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 order dt. 27-10-2009 passed by the 2nd respondent and the consequential Judgment dt. 02-12-2009 made in Crl.A. No. 176 / 2009 confirmed to the extent of 10% of the seized stocks to be confiscated infavour of the Government. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 02.12.2009, passed in Criminal Appeal No.176 of 2009 by the learned Sessions Judge, Prakasam Division, Ongole, (for short, ‘the 1st Appellate Court), whereby the 1st Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal while confirming the order of the Collector of confiscation, however by modifying the quantum of 15% of seized stock or its value in favour of the Government by reducing the same to 10% of the seized stock or its value shall be returned to the appellant, which is preferred against the Rc.CS1/6A/80/2009. 2. 2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the District Magistrate, for the sake of convenience. 3. The brief averments of the case are that on 17.07.2009, based on telephonic information received from the Tahsildar of Ongole, the District Supply Officer, Ongole, proceeded along with a team to inspect the premises of Karamsetti Ravi Kumar’s shop near Srinivas Theatre, Ongole, where it was reported that large stocks of rice were stored. Upon inspection, a discrepancy was found amounting to 236.25 quintals in normal rice and 2.75 quintals in broken rice. Since this variation exceeded the permissible limit as stipulated under Clause 10(1)(c) of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, 3 Storage & Regulation) Order, 2008, the available stock was seized. A panchanama was prepared in the presence of mediators, and the seized stock was handed over to Sri A. Venkateswarlu of Varalakshmi Rice Traders for interim safe custody. The report was subsequently recorded under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The lower court observed that the respondent was engaged in clandestine dealings with rice and accordingly ordered the confiscation of 15% of the seized stock or its value in favor of the Government, while directing that the remaining stock be returned to the respondent. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations set forth in the panchanama pertain solely to discrepancies between the stock register and the physical stock. There is, however, no allegation suggesting clandestine business activities or any other irregularities. He further contends that purchase and sales details are typically recorded at the close of each business day, and the mere absence of bills on a particular day cannot, by itself, be construed as evidence of stock variations and any discrepancies must be verified in relation to the preceding day's records as well. 6. The petitioner/appellant’s case is that on 17.07.2009, he sold 650 bags of rice (each weighing 25 kilograms) to G. Srinu, Sri Prathiba Hostel Centre, and Damodara Public School, under Bill Nos. 15, 16, 17, and 18 respectively, at 11:00 A.M. Due to the rush at the shop, the aforementioned entries were not recorded in the stock register immediately, although bills were issued to the purchasers. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Second Respondent, without proper application of mind and acting in a routine manner solely based on the report of the Third Respondent, issued the show cause notice under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act on 06.08.2009. In 4 view of these circumstances, he requests that this Criminal Revision Case be allowed. 8. It is settled law as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra V. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand1, that “in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well 1st Appellate Court”. 9. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court is to examine the correctness, legality, and propriety of the judgment/order passed by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. This Court is not ordinarily required to re-examine and re-appreciate the evidence which is already appreciated by the trial Court and the appellate Court unless it is found that there is clear non- appreciation of the evidence already on record or appreciation of inadmissible evidence, or that finding has been recorded without any evidence on record. If there is evidence on record on the point of decision formulated by the Courts below for arriving at a conclusion of guilt, this Court is not required to enter into the records again to substitute its view in place of the view taken by the trial Court and the appellate Court. 10. It is well settled that, in the absence of perversity or manifest error, a revision court is not expected to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the courts below. 11. Upon careful perusal of the record, this Court finds no perversity in the orders passed by the Joint Collector as well as District Court to upset the concurrent factual findings as it is not for the revisional court to reanalyze and reinterpret the evidence on record. Upon careful examination of the record, both Courts have concurrently held that the entries were not recorded in the Register. It is undisputed that the appellant holds all the necessary licenses and has duly paid taxes to the Government. The appellant explained the delay 1 (2004) 7 SCC 659 5 in recording the entries by stating that they are busy in the shop, the Register entries to be made only at the close of business. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments solely to the quantum of the confiscated amount. Given the nature of the accusation, and explanation submitted, the considerable lapse of time since the date of confiscation, this Court finds that the case warrants some degree of interference in order to reduce the quantum of confiscation. After careful consideration, this Court is of the opinion that ordering confiscation of 5% of the seized stock would serve the ends of justice. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part so far as the order of the Collector & District Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole, for confiscation of 15% of seized stocks or its value, modified to 10% by the learned Sessions Judge, Ongole, is reduced to 5% of the seized stock or its value. Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J Date: 11.08.2025 M K K 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Revision Case No.357 of 2010 Date: 11.08.2025 U M K K 36