IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV- C> THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE o liif % \ o 1^% -m' JJ PRESENT -C. o /y A. '-A-' THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 337 OF 2010 Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. aggrieved against the orders of learned Sessions Judge, Ongole, passed in C.A. No. 147 of 2009 dated 6*^ day of November, 2009, preferred against the orders of the Collector (CS), Prakasam District in RC. CS1/6A/102/2009, dated 05-10- 2009. Between: Puvvada Venkata Chalapathi Rao, S/o. Bapisetty, Age: 43 years, Kurichedu (V) & Mandal, Prakasam District. ...PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND 1. The Collector (C S), Prakasam District, Ongole. 2. The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Darsi, Prakasam District. 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS i.A. NO: 2 OF 2010rCRLRCMP. NO: 504 OF 2010) Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the learned Sessions Judge, Ongole dated 06-11-2009 passed in C.A. No. 147 of 2009 in so far as the same is against the petitioner in respect of confiscation of 11, V2 quintals of Red Gram Seized Stock, pending disposal of the above CrI.R.C. r Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs. ANUSHA DONTI REDDY, LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: 7 ft / / / APHC010294682010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 337/2010 Between: Puvvada Venkata Chalapathi Rao, Kurichedu, ...PETITIONER Prakasam District. AND The Collector CS Prakasam Dist Ongole others ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Anusha Donti Reddy Legal Aid Counsel for the Respondent{S): Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the Judgment dated 06.11.2009 in Crl.A.Nos.147 & 148 of 2009 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Prakasam Division at Ongole, whereby and whereunder, the order passed by the learned Collector (CS), 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.337of2010 Dated 20.03.2025 Prakasam District, Ongole, in Rc.No.CS1/6A/102/2009, dated 05.10.2009 modified as under; was “Accordingly and in the result, both the appeals allowed while confirming the order of the Joint confiscation, however by modifying the quantum of confiscation of 30.75 quinfals of seized red gram stock in tavour of the Government to release 50 quintals of red gram and to confiscate the remaining seized stock of 11 '/z quintals to the appellant in both the appeals”. are partly Collector of 2. Heard learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 3. Ms. Anusha Donti Reddy, learned Legal Aid Counsel for while reiterating the grounds of Revision argued that the the petitioner, seized stock of red gram was the agricultural produce of the petitioner from his land in the house of K. Lingaiah (Q.37.50) and S. Chinna Subba As such, the seizure and confiscation justifiable and unwarranted. Therefore, it urged to and stored it Reddy (Q.24.00). of agricultural produce was not set aside the impugned judgments and also impugned proceedings passed by the learned Collector (CS), Prakasam, Ongole, and allow the criminal revision case. 4. Per Contra Ms. P. 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 order, nonetheless reduced the quantum of confiscafion of seized stock, and the confiscation 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.337 of 2010 Dated 20.03.2025 as there are no merits in the Revision Case, and it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by 5. the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. Now the point for consideration is; 6. "Whether the Judgments in CrI.A.Nos. 147 and 148 of 2009, dated 06.11.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ongole, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?" The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar (EDT), Darsi, had reported that on 7. receipt of credible information that red gram was being stored illegally in the house Seelam China Subba Reddy, Namasivayapuram Agraharam village of Kurichedu Mandal, he along with Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar (EDT), Podili and Mandal Revenue Inspector (MRI), Kurichedu proceeded to Namasivayapuram Agraharam village on 20.8.2009 at about 11.00 AM and surprised the house of Seelam China Subba Reddy, and found 48 bags of red gram i.e., Q.24.00 valued Rs.96,000/- (each bag 50 kgs). The EDT had also reported that when asked about the illegal storage of red gram without having valid license required under Andhra Pradesh Scheduled^Qpmmodities Dealer (LS & R) Order, 2008 (for brevity ‘the LSR Order’), the house owner S.China Subba Reddy stated that one Sri Puvvada 8. 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.337of2010 Dated 20.03.2025 > had stored the red gram in his Chalapathi Rao, Kurichedu Viiiage and Mandal house. 9. The EDT had also reported that he indulged in clandestine business believed that the petitioner sans Food Grain License under ‘the LSR order.; and doing speculative business in Red Gram causing hike of prices in was open market and thereby contravened the Order.,’ and hence seized the available provisions of law under ‘the LSR quantity of Q.24.00 of Red Gram in 48 bags (each 50kgs), worth of Rs.96,000/- under cover of Panchanama in the presence of mediators and handed Narasimha Rao, VRO, Namasivayapuram Agraharam custody and obtained proper receipt, filed over the same to Chintapalli Lakshmi village, for interim safe a report under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') and requested to initiate 6(A) of ‘the Act’ proceedings. Later, the case was taken on file under Section 6(A) of ‘the Act’. 10. Interim disposal Orders 9.9.09 directing the petitioner to furnish Rs.75000/- in were passed vide Rc.CS1/6A/103/09, dated a Bank Guarantee for any Nationalized Bank for release of the an amount of seized stocks of Q.24.00 of Red Gram, worth of Rs.96,000/- pending enquiry in 6{A) of ‘the Act' proceedings. However, the petitioner did not furnish Bank Guarantee and as such the stocks were not released. 5 Dr. YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.337 of 2010 Dated 20.03.2025 A notice, as required, under section 6-B of ‘the Act’ was issued to the 11. petitioner vide Rc.CS1/6A/103/09, dt:4.9.09 directing the petitioner to show cause within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice as to why the seized stocks should not be confiscated in favour of Government. In response to Show Cause Notice, the petitioner filed explanation 12. through his advocate stating that he was owning agricultural land to an extent of Ac.8.50, raised Red Gram and realized a yield of Q.62.00 and stored the same in two houses in the said village i.e., Q.37.50 in the house of K. Lingaiah and Q.24.00 in the house of S.China Subba Reddy with a view to dispose off them for better price after converting the red gram into dall. He stated that though the seized stock of Q.61.50 stored in two houses belongs to him, the EDT, Darsi filed two separate cases and in fact he had taken two houses for lease temporarily from the owners and at the time of seizure also the owners have specifically stated that he was owning lands and the seized stock of red gram was produce from his own lands and he stored the same in their houses since his lands were very nearer to their houses. Further, he mentioned that the Inspecting Officer had resorted to the 13. seizure of the stocks without conducting any enquiry and giving any opportunity to him and even verification of his Pattadar Pass books and Title Deeds. He stated that he was not guilty of contraventions of any control orders and the seizure itself was illegal as he was an agriculturist and the produce of an agriculturist could neither be seized nor confiscated. Finally, he had Dr.YLRj , Crl.R.C.No.337of2010 '' Dated 20.03.2025 exonerate him from 6(A) gram. requested to consider the proceedings and order for return above facts and of the seized stocks of red 14. This case finally Collector (C.S). Before the learned petitioner argued that the produce derived from his houses (both lease. His main contention Q.62.00 of red K.Lingaiah and S.China (S.China Subba Reddy house Q.24. be seized and confiscated. came up for hearing on 29.09.2009 Collector (C.S). the learned seized stock of Red Gram own lands and stored the cases 6A/102/2009 & 6A/103/2009) by was that he had Ac.8.50 of before the Learned counsel for the was the agricultural same in two different taking the same on own land and yielded gram and stored the same in two different houses of Subba Reddy (K.Lingaiah house Q.37.50) and 00) and the agricultural produce could not 15. As seen from the records, it was observed that in both cases 102/09 seized stock of inspection, the house the said red and 103/09. the petitioner red gram in both the was one and the same and the total cases areQ.61.50. At the time of i Reddy categorically stated that owner S. China Subba stored by the petitioner Q.62.00 of red gram from not possible and believable and also of red gram in two different houses gram was who was doing pulses business. ac.8.50 cents of land Further, a yield of as stated by the petitioner was for storage of limited by taking on lease It was observed that in view of the above discussed facts, quantity of Q.62.00 was also not necessary, the contention of 7 ^3^ Dr. YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.337of 2010 Dated 20.03.2025 the petitioner that the seized stock of red gram was his own agriculture produce was not believable and convincing. As seen from record, the petitioner could successfully prove that the seized stock red gram was agricultural produce derived from his own land and 16. stored in two different houses had taking on lease. It is also established that the petitioner had Ac.8.50 of own land and yielded Q.62-00 of red gram and stored in the house of K. Lingaiah and S.China Subba Reddy. Hence, the agricultural produce could not be seized and confiscated in favour of the government. The statement alone of S. China Subba Reddy cannot be taken ^ into consideration, when the petitioner had proved that he had agricultural \ land to an extent of Ac.8.50 and it was the yield of the petitioner. There was no evidence produced by EDT, Darsi that the seized stock was not agricultural produce of the petitioner except the self-serving statement of S. Chinna Subba Reddy, as burden lies on EDT, Darsi to establish that the seized stock was not agricultural produce of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned judgments and proceedings are not sustainable and they are liable to be interfered and set aside. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the 17. common judgment in Crl.A.Nos.147 and 148 of 2009, dated 06.11.2009 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Consequently, the proceedings in Rc.No.CS1/6A/102/2009, dated 05.10.2009 of the learned Collector (CS), Prakasam, Ongole, are also set aside. 8 Dr. YLR, J , Crl.R.C.No.337of2010 ' Dated 20.03.2025 18. The learned Collector (CS), Prakasam, value of the seized stock to the Ongole, is directed to pay the petitioner, which the Government, within three (03) months from was confiscated in favour of the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 19. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision order as to costs. Case is allowed. There shall be no As a sequel. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending shall stand closed. Sd/- V DIWAKAR deputy registrar //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The Collector (CS), Prakasam,Ongole. 2. The Sessions Judge, Ongole. 3. One CC to Sri. Anusha Donti Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC to Public Prosecutor Amaravathi. [OUT] The Section Officer, Criminal Section Three CD Copies High Court of Andhra Pradesh at 5. High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 6. Chp VNA V HIGH COURT DATED:20/03/2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.337 of 2010 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE