APHC010704102010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 732/2010 Between: Challa Venkateswarlu and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Collector CS and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): ANUSHA DONTI REDDY LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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 11.06.2009 passed in Crl.A. No.35 of 2009, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Prakasam Division, Ongole, confirming the order of the learned Collector (CS), Prakasam District, Ongole in Rc.CS1/6A/154/2008, dated 10.11.2008, whereunder the learned Collector had confiscated 100% of the value of the seized stock to the Government. 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.732 of 2010 Dated: 19.03.2025 2. Heard learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents. 3. Ms.Anusha Donti Reddy, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the grounds of Revision argued that the impugned Judgment and also the impugned proceedings are silent about the provision of the control order, which was allegedly contravened by the petitioners. In the absence of framing a specific charge about contravention of any clause of control orders by the petitioners, ordering for confiscation of total value of the seized stock to the Government is highly arbitrary, illegal, against principles of natural justice and unsustainable and urged to allow the Criminal Revision Case by setting aside the impugned Judgment and the proceedings. 4. Per Contra, Ms. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the learned Sessions Judge had rightly examined the impugned proceedings and passed Judgment declining to interfere with the confiscation order and as there are no merits in the Revision case, and it is argued that it shall be dismissed. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Legal Aid counsel and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.35 of 2009, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Prakasam Division, Ongole, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.732 of 2010 Dated: 19.03.2025 7. It is the case of Tahsildar, Kandukur, that he got received credible information that huge quantity of red gram bags were stored in the house of petitioner No.1, and he along with Mandal Agriculture Officer and Additional Revenue Officer proceeded to the spot on 17.08.2008 and found that red gram bags were stored in the premises of the petitioner No.1. He came to know that petitioner No.2 was a broker to sell the above red gram. The Tahsildar had opened the doors in the presence of the mediators and verified the stock of red gram available in the room and found 54 bags of 100 kgs and 16 bags of 50 kgs, totally weighing 62 quintals in 70 bags of red gram stored illegally. 8. It was noticed that the petitioners had contravened the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Pulses Licensing Storage and Regulation order, 2007, ironically, which clause of the control order was violated, is not mentioned. The Tahsildar seized the stock under the cover of panchanama and handed over to the Village Revenue Officer, Oguru Village for safe custody under proper receipt. The Tahsildar filed a report under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) duly enclosing the panchanama and custodian report and requested the learned Collector to initiate proceedings under 6(A) of ‘the Act’. 9. The learned Collector upon examining the report, had noticed that the seized stock was perishable in nature and ordered for interim disposal pending Section 6(A) proceedings directing the District Manager, Civil 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.732 of 2010 Dated: 19.03.2025 Supplies Corporation, Prakasam District to take possession of the seized red gram from the custodian and convert the same into dal and dispose the same through Public Distribution System and the sale proceedings should be remitted under appropriate account and submit the original challans to the Court. Subsequently, the learned Collector issued a notice under Section 6(B) of ‘the Act’ to the petitioners vide Rc.CS1/6A/154/2008, dated 29.08.2008 and 17.09.2008 respectively, directing the petitioners to show cause within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice as to why the seized stocks should not be confiscated in favour of Government. 10. In response to the show cause notice, the petitioners filed an explanation stating that the seized red gram belongs to Challa Singaiah and Challa Venkateswarlu, who got yielded of the red gram at their own fields. They submitted that there was no accommodation in their house and they temporarily stored red gram on payment of monthly rent in the house of Kalisetty Nageswara Rao with a view to dispose of after getting better price in the market. It was also pointed out that the learned Tahsildar without conducting due enquiry, seized the stock by preparing panchanama with incorrect recitals. They are agriculturists owing the lands and seized stock of red gram was their agricultural produce. The alleged contravention of the controlled orders was not applicable to them. The petitioners had also filed pattadar passbooks to show that the seized stock was their agricultural yield and urged to release the stock and exonerate them from 6(A) proceedings. 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.732 of 2010 Dated: 19.03.2025 11. The learned Collector (CS) passed an order directing for confiscation of 100% of the value of the seized stock in favour of the Government. Observing that, the house owner by name Smt.K.Madhavi clearly stated that she had given her house to one person of Kandukuru, on rent basis and one person by name Challa Venkateswarlu, who is the broker, was assisting the said person in red gram business. 12. It was observed by the learned Collector that Kalisetty Nageswara rao filed explanation stating that the seized stock belonged to Challa Singaiah and Challa Venkateswarlu of the same village and the statements of wife and husband are contradictory. As such the contention of the petitioners was not believable and an afterthought to escape from the liability under Section 6(A) of ‘the Act’. 13. The learned Sessions Judge did not incline to interfere with the impugned proceedings passed by the learned Collector. 14. It has to be pointed out that there is no reference about the framing of charge for the alleged contravention of certain clause(s) control order Andhra Pradesh Pulses Licensing Storage and Regulation Order, 2007 in the impugned proceedings passed by the learned Collector or the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The impugned Judgment and the impugned proceedings are silent about the certain or particular provision of the control order which was allegedly violated by the petitioners. Any charge sans framing certain or specific provision of control order enabling 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.732 of 2010 Dated: 19.03.2025 the petitioners to effectively defend the case and offer their explanation, is vitiated by the Principles of Natural Justice. The learned Collector ought to have framed a specific and substantive charge for alleged violation of the Control Order. Not framing of any such charge with specific acquisition that the petitioners violated a particular provision of the Control Order and passing orders confiscating the value of the 100% of the seized stock in favour of the Government had certainly caused prejudice and injustice to the petitioners. The communication between the wife and husband are considered to be privileged communications as per Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. If there is any inconsistency in communication between Kalisetty Nageswara rao and his wife that inconsistency cannot be taken into consideration. Ironically, the learned Collector and also the learned Judge had not taken into consideration the important aspect raised and evidence produced by the petitioners that they were the agriculturists and the seized stock was their agricultural yield by relying on pattadar passbooks. 15. For the above reasons, seizure of 100% value of the seized stock and confiscation in favour of the Government ignoring the important point that the seized stock was agricultural produce of the petitioners, is unsustainable. The order of the learned Sessions Judge suffers from perversity and caused manifest injustice and prejudice to the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned Judgment and proceedings are liable to be set aside. 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.732 of 2010 Dated: 19.03.2025 16. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the Judgment 11.06.2009 passed in Crl.A. No.35 of 2009 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Prakasam Division, Ongole, consequently the proceedings in Rc.CS1/6A/154/2008 dated 10.11.2008, passed by the learned Collector (CS), Prakasam District, Ongole, are also set aside. 17. The learned Collector (CS), Prakasam District, Ongole, is directed to pay the value of the seized stock to the petitioners, which was confiscated in favour of the Government within three (03) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 18. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 19.03.2025 M K K