APHC010601582011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1177/2011 Between: Miryala Narsimha Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. B PARAMESEWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the Judgment, dated 06.04.2011 passed in E.C.C.M.A.No.75 of 2010, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, confirming the order dated 04.09.2010, passed in CSI/136/ECA/2009 on the file of the learned Joint Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru. 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1177 of 2011 Dated: 24.03.2025 2. I have heard the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondents. 3. Sri B.Parameswara Rao, learned Legal Aid Counsel submits that the impugned Judgment and also the impugned proceedings though mentioned two charges, no reference about a specific or certain control order being allegedly violated by the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned Judgment and the proceedings are not sustainable as they are hit by principles of natural justice. 4. Per Contra, Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the Judgment of the learned Appellate Court is not hit by any of the principles of natural justice and the proceedings of the learned Joint Collector do not suffer from any legal infirmity and urged to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. 6. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in E.C.C.M.A.No.75 of 2010, passed by the learned Principal and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 7. The complaint was filed under Section 6(A) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for brevity ‘the Act’), before the learned Joint Collector by the 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1177 of 2011 Dated: 24.03.2025 Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer, Eluru, alleging that the petitioners and some others indulged in the illegal transportation of the paddy. On 16.09.2009, the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer, Eluru on receipt of credible information caught hold lorry bearing registration No. AP 16 TV 0488 along with ASO Eluru, CI Vigilance and Enforcement Department Eluru, Tahsildar Vigilance and Enforcement Department, Eluru, while the lorry was transporting the rice unauthorizedly from Kuchipudi Village of Nalgonda District to Mandapeta of East Godavari District. The petitioners and others allegedly admitted before the mediators that they were transporting the rice under the guise of paddy contravening the provisions of clause 7, 8 and 12 of Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) order, 1984. The Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer, Eluru, seized the entire stock along with lorry and lodged a complaint under Section 6(A) of ‘the Act’ with the learned Joint Collector. The seized stock was handed over to Sri V.V.Suresh Kumar, Prop: M/s Sri Vasavi Trading Company, Singavaram Village, Denduluru Mandal, and the lorry bearing registration No.AP 16 TV 0488 was handed over to Station House Officer, Denduluru for safe custody. The details of seized stock are extracted as under: S.No. Item Quantity in Lts. Value of Seized Stock in Rs. 1. Rice 193.40 Qlts 2,90,100/- 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1177 of 2011 Dated: 24.03.2025 8. The learned Joint Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru, framed two charges which are extracted as under: CHARGE-I: that the respondent is doing the clandestine business and transportation of rice under the guise of paddy fraudulently and cheated Government by avoiding taxes. CHARGE-II: that the respondent is transporting rice illegally without any valid document and permit by the competent authority. 9. These charges were mentioned in a notice and asked the petitioners to show cause why the seized stock should not be confiscated to the Government under Section 6(A) of ‘the Act’. It seems that the petitioners submitted a written explanation stating that the petitioner No.1 is an agriculturist and his paddy was converted into rice and transporting to other district; no permit is required to move rice as he being an agriculturist he transported in his lorry and the AGPO wrongly seized stock even after payment of commercial taxes and market taxes. 10. The learned Joint Collector in his proceedings mentioned as under: “The respondent produced certain court judgment, which is pertaining to removal of restriction order, 2002. After that the State Government got approval of Central Government and imposed restricted on Food Grains and issued regulatory order by way Licensing Order, 2008 read with levy order, 1984. The movement of rice common variety should be only permit. Further, in this case, the rice is moved under Rythwari certificate of 170Qtls of 1010 variety of paddy. This Sub-Inspector of Police clear cheating that the rice of Common Variety are moving under the guise of paddy and in the name of farmers. Therefore, the explanation is not true.” 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1177 of 2011 Dated: 24.03.2025 11. With the above reasons the learned Joint Collector, ordered confiscation of 50% of the seized stock in favour of the Government and for involvement of the vehicle for transportation of rice bank guarantee furnished to the extent of 2% was confiscated. 12. The impugned proceedings contain two charges and these charges do not indicate about the contravention of a specific control order. Even though Section 6(B)(3) of ‘the Act’, says that irregularity in the notice given under clause A of sub section 1 would not become invalid, if the provisions of that clause have been substantially complied with. In the absence of such specific accusation against the petitioners, ordering 50% of the value of seized rice to the Government appears to be disproportionate and excessive to the magnitude of the case. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also confirmed that there were no prior or subsequent antecedents against the petitioners with similar allegations. 13. In view of the above, confiscation of the value of seized property to an extent of 50% is disproportionate. Therefore, it is required to be reduced from 50% to 25%. The confiscation of the 2% of the Bank Guarantee furnished to the vehicle for illegal transportation appears to be reasonable and moderate. Therefore that need not be disturbed. 14. In view of the above discussion, the order of confiscation under Section 6(A) of ‘the Act’ shall be maintained. 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1177 of 2011 Dated: 24.03.2025 15. In the result the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, confirming the order of confiscation under Section 6(A) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, while reducing the quantum of confiscation from 50% to 25% of the value of the seized stock in favour of the Government. No order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. ________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 24.03.2025 M K K