APHC010589162008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY-SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 239/2008 Between: 1. TANGUDU SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. LATE NARAYANA RAO, R/O. G.T.ROAD, PALASA TOWN, PALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A.P., REP. BY PP, VIGILANCE CELL, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SRIKAKULAM, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., 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 dated 31.12.2007 in Crl.Appeal No.76/2005 on the file of the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, confirming the Order of the learned Joint Collector, Srikakulam in SR.No. 154 of 2000 S.5 dated 02.07.2005. IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLRCMP 336 OF 2008 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 stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the Order dated 02.07.2005 in SR.No. 154/2000-S.5 of the Joint Collector, Srikakulam. 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KARRI MURALI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: O R D E R 1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed, under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., assailing the judgment dated 31.12.2007, passed in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2005, by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam (for short („the 1st Appellate Court), whereby the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal while confirming the Order of the Joint Collector for 100% confiscation of the seized stock vide S.R.No.154/2000 S.5, dated 02.07.2005. 2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Joint Collector, for the sake of convenience. 3. The brief averments of the case, are that: (a) On 10.10.2000, the Vigilance Sub-Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies Department, Srikakulam, inspected the wholesale food grains shop operated by Sri Tangudu Narayana Rao and sons in Palasa Town and Mandal, managed by Andhawarapu Eswara Rao. The inspection, registered under Cr.No.135/VC-SKL/2000, revealed discrepancies in the stock of pulses and other essential commodities. A total of 3.50 quintals of sugar, pulses, and wheat products were seized. The shop's license is in the name of Tangudu Narayana Rao, father of the petitioner. The investigation indicated that the individuals were engaged in clandestine trading by failing to maintain proper stock levels. Based on a prima facie violation of relevant provisions, the Vigilance Sub-Inspector seized the available stock under a mediators' report. 3 Sl. No. Description of the seized stocks 1. 3.50 quintals of sugar. 2. 4.00 quintals of green gram dal. 3. 8.00 quintals of Bengal gram dal. 4. 3.60 quintals of wheat ravva. 5. 19.35 quintals of Maida. 6. 9.12 quintals of peas 7. 3.60 quintals of atta 8. 12.48 quintals of idli ravva. 9. 4.00 quintals of blackgram dal. 10. 6.50 quintals of peas dal. 11. 8.50 quintals of redgram dal. 12. 1.50 quintals of fried dal. (b) The Vigilance Sub-Inspector submitted a report seeking action under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. Pending proceedings under Section 6-A(2) of the Act, the seized stocks were ordered to be disposed of, as per SR.No.154 of 2005/S1 dated 24.10.2000. 4. The case was taken on file, and a show-cause notice was issued in SR No.154/2000 S1 dated 21.11.2000. After considering the explanations and arguments from both sides, an order was passed for the confiscation of 100% of the seized stock. Aggrieved by this, Tangudu Srinivasa Rao, son of the original licensee Tangudu Narayana Rao, filed a Writ Petition before this Court. The Court noted that the confiscation order was passed without acknowledging that the original licensee had passed away on 06.04.2004. As the Order was made against a deceased person, the Court set aside the impugned Order and remanded the matter to the Joint Collector, Srikakulam, for fresh adjudication after issuing notice to the petitioner as the legal representative. 5. Pursuant to the directions of the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in W.P.No.5752 of 2004 dated 13.04.2004, the case was reopened for fresh consideration. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued, framing the following charge against (1) Andavarapu Eswara Rao and (2) Tangudu Srinivas, legal representative of the late Tangudu Narayana Rao of Palasa Town and Mandal. 4 Charge: The Vigilance Sub-Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies Department, Srikakulam, has inspected the wholesale food grains shop of Tangudu Narayana Rao and sons situated in the main Bazar vide D.No.2-15- 15-10 at Palasa Town and Mandal, being maintained by the Respondent No.1 on 10.10.2000 and found the following stock variations on verification ground and book balance. Storage Excess 1. Pease: 0.48 quintals Fried dal : 1.50 quintals 2. Blackgram dal :1.00 quintals 3. Greengram dal: 1.50 quintals 4. Redgram dal: 1.00 quintals 6. The scheduled commodities license stood in the name of the 2nd respondent‟s late father; however, at the time of inspection, Respondent No.1 was found operating the shop. The respondents were engaged in clandestine business practices, including failure to maintain adequate stock records, improper display of the stock-cum-price list, and non-submission of Form-C returns to the licensing authorities. These actions constitute malpractices and amount to a prima facie contravention of Clause 3 of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing & Distribution) Order, 1982, the conditions of the license issued thereunder, and Clause 3 of the A.P. Exhibition of Price Lists and Goods Order, 1966, read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 7. The 2nd respondent, Tangudu Srinivasa Rao, legal representative of the late Tangudu Narayana Rao, submitted an explanation stating that the original licensee passed away on 06.04.2004. He claimed that he merely assisted his father in the business to gain experience and had no involvement in maintaining business accounts, which his father handled with the help of a part-time clerk. He asserted that his father diligently maintained the stock- cum-price board and regularly submitted Form-C returns to the licensing authority. He denied any stock discrepancies, alleging that the reported variation was fabricated and that signatures were forcibly obtained from 5 Respondent No.1. He further contended that neither he nor the original licensee had signed or consented to any such documents or reports. According to him, Respondent No.1 (A. Eswara Rao) was not authorized to make statements or sign documents on behalf of the licensee. Therefore, the documents are neither valid nor binding on the licensee or the 2nd respondent. He alleged that the complainant fabricated the case solely to meet a statistical quota. 8. After considering the explanation submitted by the 2nd respondent, Tangudu Srinivasa Rao, and upon hearing the arguments and examining the material on record, the learned Joint Collector found the respondents guilty of the charge and accordingly ordered the confiscation of 100% of the seized stock. 9. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned Joint Collector, the respondents filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.76 of 2005 before the 1st Appellate Court. The Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 31.12.2007, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Joint Collector's Order. Challenging the said judgment, the 1st appellant therein filed the present revision case. 10. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides. Perused the record. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 100% confiscation of the seized stock is excessive and disproportionate to the charges. He argues that the alleged stock variations were not genuine, as the ground stock was not measured properly. He further submits that the mediators, being local business persons under the influence of the Civil Supplies Department, signed the seizure report after the fact, not at the place of seizure. Additionally, he asserts that there were no restrictions on stocking items like sugar, wheat ravva, maida, idly ravva, peas, and atta, making their confiscation illegal, irregular, and impermissible. 6 12. 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”. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Order passed by the Joint Collector to support his contention. The Joint Collector allegedly found stock variations upon verifying ground and book balances and subsequently issued show cause notices to the respondents, as detailed below: Tabular Form-I Storage Excess 1. Pease: 0.48 quintals Fried dal : 1.50 quintals 2. Blackgram dal :1.00 quintals 3. Greengram dal: 1.50 quintals 4. Redgram dal: 1.00 quintals 1 (2004) 7 SCC 659 7 However, the Vigilance Sub-Inspector of Police seized the stocks based on the mediators‟ report, as detailed below: Tabular Form-II Sl. No. Description of the seized stocks 1. 3.50 quintals of sugar. 2. 4.00 quintals of green gram dal. 3. 8.00 quintals of Bengal gram dal. 4. 3.60 quintals of wheat ravva. 5. 19.35 quintals of Maida. 6. 9.12 quintals of peas 7. 3.60 quintals of atta 8. 12.48 quintals of idli ravva. 9. 4.00 quintals of blackgram dal. 10. 6.50 quintals of peas dal. 11. 8.50 quintals of redgram dal. 12. 1.50 quintals of fried dal. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even the impugned judgment by the 1st Appellate Court acknowledges variations between the book balance and ground stock for black gram dal (Sl. No. 2, Tabular Form-I). The primary allegation concerns this discrepancy. Learned counsel relied on the decision in Kyasa Narayana vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2, which is relevant to the present case. This decision, upheld by the Composite High Court, cites Dilip Kumar vs. State3, where it was held that a mere variation between book balance and ground stock does not justify confiscation. In Kyasa Narayana’s case (supra 2nd cited), the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed that “what can be confiscated is the variation of the stock or the value thereof but not the entire stock that is found in the possession of the Mill.” However, in the present case, the Joint Collector ordered confiscation not only of the stock showing variation but of the entire seized stock. 17. Following the principles laid down by this Court, it is found that the learned counsel for the petitioner‟s submission has merit that the Joint 2 2013 SCC OnLine AP 1188 = MANU/AP/0633/2013 3 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 360 (AP) 8 Collector, Srikakulam, should have seized only the stock showing variation as indicated in Tabular Form-I. 18. In light of the observations in the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court holds that the Joint Collector's Order confiscating the entire stock, as detailed in Tabular Form-II, is void. The Joint Collector should have confiscated only the excess stock indicated in Tabular Form-I. Confiscation of the entire stock contravenes the Rules and contradicts the principles established in Kyasa Narayana’s case (supra cited). 19. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part. The impugned judgment in Crl.A.No.76 of 2005 dated 31.12.2007 passed on the file of learned District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, as well as the Order passed by the Joint Collector, Srikakulam, confiscating the entire stock vide Tabular Form-II, is hereby set aside and the Order passed by the Joint Collector holds good in respect of the confiscation of the excess stock, as shown in Tabular Form-I. It is brought to the Court‟s attention that the seized stock has already been confiscated. Accordingly, the Joint Collector, Srikakulam, is directed to refund the value of the seized stock shown in Tabular Form-II to the petitioner, after deducting the value of the excess stock indicated in Tabular Form-I. Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 22.08.2025 MS 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.239 OF 2008 DATE: 22.08.2025 MS