APHC010482152008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 850/2008 Between: U. Chandrasekhar Reddy and Another ...PETITIONER(S) AND State Rep By PP and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): Ineni Venkata Prasad Counsel for the Respondent(S): Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER: The revision was directed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’) against the judgment dated 24.02.2006 in Crl. A. No.45 of 2002 on the file of Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram, whereunder the appeal was dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Ananthapuram in Rc.K3/No.37017827/2000 dated 21.05.2001, whereby the learned Joint Collector confiscated 100% of seized stocks to Government 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.850 of 2008 Dated 13.02.2025 account under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for brevity ‘the E.C.Act’) and also imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) on the owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP 02T 0863 instead of confiscation of the seized lorry. It was a case of the Inspector of Police V.C.C.S.D. Ananthapuram that he had intercepted a lorry bearing No.AP 2T 0863 on 25.01.2000 at the outskirts of Kanekal village and seized it along with 55.76 quintals parly variety paddy in 85 bags worth of Rs.26,764.80/- under cover of panchanama and reported to initiate action against the petitioner under Section 6-A of ‘the E.C Act’. 2. The learned Joint Collector, after conducting an enquiry, confiscated the seized stocks as mentioned above. In the revision, it was agitated that the learned Appellate Court failed to see that the control orders had been removed in pursuance of the Orders passed in the year 2000, under which no saving clause was incorporated to save the grievance actions. 3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 4. Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Central Government has promulgated in the year 2002 the Removal of Licencing Requirements, Stock Limits and Movement Restrictions on Specified Foodstuff Order, 2002, repealing the control orders, and the same was adopted by the State Government and it is evident from the G.O issued 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.850 of 2008 Dated 13.02.2025 by Andhra Pradesh State Government on 27.03.2002. By the said G.O no licence or permit is required for foodstuffs. Hence, the order passed by the learned Joint Collector and also the learned Sessions Judge, Anathapuram was not in accordance with law and requested to set aside the impugned judgment. 5. Per contra, Mr K. Sandeep, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the learned Sessions Judge had rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and passed a reasoned order which is not required to be interfered with and requested to dismiss the revision. 6. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.45 of 2002 dated 24.02.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief? 7. It was the contention of the 1st respondent that the petitioner had indulged in the transportation of 55.76 quintals of parly variety paddy in 82 bags as against Clause 3 of APSCD (L&D) Order, 1982 and Clause 3 of A.P Paddy (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1987 as the petitioner was transporting it from Bommanahal of A.P to Bellary of Karnataka State without possessing any valid licence and records for getting pecuniary gains by avoiding taxes to the government. 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.850 of 2008 Dated 13.02.2025 8. As can be seen from the Order vide the Removal of Licencing Requirements, Stock Limits, and Movement Restrictions on specified Foodstuff Order, 2002 the control orders were removed by the Central Government. Similarly, the A.P. State Government also vide a government order in G.O. dated 27.03.2002 followed the same Control Order issued by the Central Government and issued the said G.O., by virtue of it no licence or permit is required for foodstuff transportation. Therefore, the transportation of the paddy is not in violation of any Control Order. 9. The learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the G.O. issued by the government and erred in upholding the order passed by the learned Joint Collector. As such, the judgment, which is challenged in revision requires to be interfered with and set aside. 10. In the year 2008 the revision was filed. The alleged contravention was noticed in the year 2001. Nearly 24 years are passed by. Indeed, it is not out of place to mention herein that in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar1 it is held that right to speedy trial, which includes hearing of the Appeal and Revision, is part of a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. In addition to the appeals the right to a speedy trial also includes criminal revisions as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar2 . The right of speedy trial of the revisionist 1 AIR 1979 SC 1360 2 (1999) 7 SCC 604 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.850 of 2008 Dated 13.02.2025 is being violated because of delay in disposal of the revision within a reasonable time. As stated supra, the alleged occurrence took place about 24 years ago. The revisionist has been facing mental agony and trauma of the protracted prosecution and suffered mental harassment for a long period of 24 years. Therefore, the delay is also one of the grounds to set aside the impugned order. 11. For the above reasons, criminal revision is allowed and thereby the judgment in Crl.A.No.45 of 2002 dated 24.02.2002 passed by the learned sessions judge is set aside. Consequently, the order passed by the learned Joint Collector is also set aside. The learned Joint Collector, Anantapur is directed to release the value of the confiscated stock to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 13.02.2025 KMS/VTS 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.850 of 2008 Dated 13.02.2025 426 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 850/2008 13.02.2024 W KMS