APHC010178272023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 9034/2023 Between: 1. BHOOPALAM SRINIVASULU, S/O SATYANARAYANA AGE 50 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.2/252, GUN MEN STREET, GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. BHOOPALAM VISHNU VAMSI,, S/O SRINIVSULU AGE 21 YEARS, OCC STUDENT, R/O D.NO.2/252, GEN MEN STREET, GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, SECRETERIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLY, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT, ANANTAPURAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, VIGILANCE AND ENFORCEMENT, ANANTAPURAM. 4. THE STATE S H O, ANANTAPUR IV TOWN POLICE STATION, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in VS,J W.P No.9034 of 2023 2 the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent passed order in proceedings No. Rc.No.K3/522/2022 dated 20-12-2022 imposing monitor penalty 50percent of the value of the seized stock (Value of the seized is Rs.2,10,000/-) is imposed as penalty on the vehicle owner/petitioner to release the goods carriage vehicle bearing No.AP39-TT - 7797 was seized rice through Panchanama dated 13-10-2022 Opp Kia showroom at National Highway 44, Anantapur- Bangalore Highway road, Anantapur, by the respondent No.4 and registered criminal case against the petitioner in Cr.No.240/2022 under section 420 r/w 34 IPC, 7 (1) of the E.C Act, 1955 is wholly illegal, arbitrary , against law and principles of natural justice and consequentially to set aside the orders passed by the 2nd respondent and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to release seized stocks 220 rice bags (50 kg weight of each bag) and goods carriage vehicle bearing No. AP39-TT-7797 which was seized by 4th respondent under Panchanama dated;13-10-2022 by suspending the proceedings issued by 2nd respondent in Rc.No.K3/522/2022 dated- 20-12¬2022 pending disposal of the writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. INENI VENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES VS,J W.P No.9034 of 2023 3 The Court made the following Order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- <…issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent passed order in proceedings No. Rc.No.K3/522/2022 dated; 20-12-2022 imposing monitor penalty 50% of the value of the seized stock (Value of the seized is Rs.2,10, 000/-) is imposed as penalty on the vehicle owner/petitioner to release the goods carriage vehicle bearing No AP39-TT-7797 was seized rice through Panchanama dated; 13-10- 2022 Opp: Kia showroom at National Highway 44, Anantapur- Bangalore Highway road, Anantapur by the respondent No.4 and registered criminal case against the petitioner in Cr.No.240/2022 under section 420 r/w 34 IPC, 7(1) of the E.C Act, 1955 is wholly illegal, arbitrary, against law and principles of natural justice and consequentially to set aside the orders passed by the 2nd respondent and pass such other order or orders...= 2. The case of the petitioners is that:- a) The petitioner No.1 is involved in the business of kirana store in the name and style of M/s.Vijaya Durga Traders and in the course of his business, he purchased a Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing registration No. AP 39 TT 7797 for transportation of the goods and also for renting the same for other traders. b) While so, on 12.10.2021, the petitioner No.1 sold 240 bags of Raw Rice to PRS Rice Mills, which was purchased by him from the farmers. On 13.10.2022, when the petitioner No.1 was transporting the 240 bags of raw VS,J W.P No.9034 of 2023 4 rice to PRS rice mills at around 5:30 AM, the respondent No.4 intercepted the subject vehicle and seized the vehicle along with the stock and conducted panchanama stating that the petitioner No.1 is transporting the PDS rice having procured from the card holders and trying to sell the same illegally in Bangalore town and accordingly registered a crime to that effect vide Crime No.240 of 2022 dated 17.10.2022 on the file of the Anantapuram IV town police station, Anantapuram District, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 r/w. 34 IPC and 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. c) Though the petitioner was transporting the raw rice purchased from the farmers, but however, the respondent authorities, without considering the invoices furnished by the petitioner No.1 in support of the same, have seized the stock and the vehicle and booked a 6(A) case against the petitioner. d) Thereafter, after conducting a detailed enquiry, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned final orders vide Rc.No.K3/522/2022 dated 20.12.2022 imposing the monitory penalty of Rs.2,10,000/- being 50% value of the seized stock and on payment of such penalty, the seized vehicle was directed to be released as per the due process of law and the seized stock was directed to the deposited with concerned MLS point to the Civil Supplies Corporation and thereafter, the District Manager Civil Supplies Corporation, Anantapuramu was directed to dispose of the seized stock through public auction and remit the amount in the Government Account No.1456, Civil Supplies Head of account. VS,J W.P No.9034 of 2023 5 e) Challenging the said order, the present writ petition is filed on the ground that no notices were served on the petitioners and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before passing of the impugned final orders. 3. When the matter is taken up >for Admission?, this Court on 17.04.2023 passed the following interim orders: <…Considering the said submissions, the respondents are directed to release the seized lorry bearing Registration No. AP39TT7797 for interim custody of the 2nd petitioner on condition of furnishing the third party security equivalent to the value of seized vehicle within a period of one (1) week from today. It is further directed that the 2nd petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle, shall not change its physical features or create any encumbrance or change on the same.= 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the facts submits that in pursuance of the interim orders dated 17.04.2023, the vehicle was released in favor of the petitioner No.2. The learned counsel would further submit that pending the instant writ petition, the Criminal Case filed against the petitioners vide C.C No.2510 of 2022 on the file of the learned 2-Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Magistrate for Trial of Cases under Andhra Pradesh Prohibition and Excise Act – Cum - III Additional Junior Civil Judge, VS,J W.P No.9034 of 2023 6 Ananthapuram, was quashed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.9710 of 2025 and in view of the same, the petitioners are entitled for the release of the stock. 6. The respondent No.2 filed counter-affidavit reiterating the facts as stated by the petitioners and would submit that the petitioner No.1 was transporting PDS rice to Bangarampeta of Karnataka State and at the time of inspection, the petitioner No.1 has failed to furnish the E-way bills and GST bills with respect to the rice being transported and has also not produced any evidence i.e., passbook details or the statements of the farmers to prove that he has purchased the seized rice from the farmers. 7. It is further stated in the counter that though the respondent No.2 has disposed of the 6(A) case on 20.12.2022 by giving liberty to the petitioners to file appeal under Section 6(C) of the EC Act, 1955 before the District Senior Judge, Anantapur within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, the petitioners instead of availing the alternative remedy of appeal have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 8. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle and 240 bags of raw rice were seized by the respondents on 13.10.2022, after duly conducting a panchanama on the same day. Thereafter, a criminal case was registered against the petitioners vide Crime No.240 of 2022 dated 17.10.2022 on the file of the Anantapuram IV town police station, Anantapuram District, for the VS,J W.P No.9034 of 2023 7 offences punishable under Sections 420 r/w. 34 IPC and 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 9. It is also an admitted fact that, pending the said criminal case i.e., C.C No.2510 of 2022, vide proceedings of the respondent No.2 in Rc.No.K3/522/2022 dated 20.12.2022, the case under 6(A) of the Act attained finality, whereby a monitory penalty of Rs.2,10,000/- being 50% value of the seized stock, was imposed. 10. It is also a fact that the petitioners have filed Criminal Petition No.9710 of 2025 before this Court seeking quash of the proceedings in C.C No.2510 of 2022 on the file of the learned 2-Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Magistrate for Trial of Cases under Andhra Pradesh Prohibition and Excise Act – Cum - III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram, for the alleged offences under Sections 420 r/w. 34 IPC and 7(1) of the EC Act and the said criminal petition was allowed vide orders dated 17.09.2025 by quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. 11. In M/s.Sandeep Industries v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1996 SCC OnLine Raj 269, wherein it is inter alia held as follows: <14. No doubt, Section 6A and 6C speak about acquittal of the accused of the charge of contravening an order in respect of which confiscation proceedings are initiated for the return of the seized essential commodity or payment of the price therefor. The expression >acquittal? indicates termination of criminal prosecution against the accused and the effect of acquittal is that the offence is not committed by him. In fact, it means a judicial discharge from an accusation. The effect of acquittal under Section 7 of the Act is that the order made under Section 3 of the Act is not contravened by the accused. The logic behind the return of the seized goods or payment of price therefor on acquittal of the accused is that contravention of the order made under Section 3 of the Act, which is also a condition precedent for confiscation has not been committed by him. On the same analogy, if the VS,J W.P No.9034 of 2023 8 accused is discharged from accusation made under the Act in criminal prosecution with categorical finding that no order, made under Section 3 of the Act, is contravened or violated by him, it shall have the same effect as that of an acquittal for the purpose of confiscation proceedings or passing an order to confiscate the seized goods. After a finding that no Order made under the Act has been violated or contravened by the accused, the basis for continuation of confiscation proceedings or for passing an order of confiscation of the seized goods disappears and the very jurisdiction of the concerned authorities to proceed with confiscation proceedings comes to an end. In case where confiscation of the goods has been ordered under Section 6A, the appellate authority is also under statutory obligation to return the seized goods to the owner or the value therefor. This interpretation will promote justice and effectuate the object behind the statute which requires violation or contravention of an Order made under Section 3 of the Act for initiation of confiscation proceeding. I would like to make it clear that the view expressed by me is restricted in respect of those cases where an order of discharge is passed by the Criminal Court, holding that no Order made under Section 3 of the Act is contravened by the accused. No opinion is being expressed by me where discharge order is passed on any other ground. 15. … 16. Under Section 452 Cr. P.C., the normal rule is that in case the accused is discharged or acquitted in an offence relating to property, the Court must restore property to him, if any, recovered from his possession. In case, where ownership and possession are not in dispute, it would be fair and equitable to return the seized commodity to the owner in the event of an acquittal or discharge. Justice and reason constitute general legislative intent in every piece of legislation. The intention of legislature could only be to promote the standard of justice and propriety. It is plain by the language of Section 6A and 6C that for an order of confiscation of an essential commodity it is necessary and a condition precedent that there should be contravention of an Order made under Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, the order of discharge of the accused by a competent criminal court after holding that no Order made under Section 3 of the Act has been contravened, will carry the same meaning as that of an acquittal deployed in Section 6A or 6C of the Act. Any other interpretation would lead to contradiction and absurdity.= 12. It may be relevant to extract Section 6 (C) (2) of the EC Act, 1955 which reads as under: <Where an order under section 6A is modified or annulled by such judicial authority, or where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under section 6A, the person concerned is acquitted, and in either case it is not possible, for any reason to return the essential commodity seized, such persons shall, except as provided by sub-section (3) of section 6A, be paid the price therefore as if the essential commodity, had been sold to the Government with reasonable interest calculated from the day of the seizure of the essential commodity and such price shall be determined.= 13. The seizure of the vehicle and the rice on 13.10.2022 resulted in both criminal prosecution and confiscation proceedings. Since the criminal case VS,J W.P No.9034 of 2023 9 against the petitioners has been acquitted/quashed, the basis for alleged illegal transportation of PDS rice no longer survives. In view of the acquittal/quashment of the criminal case and having regard to the mandate of Section 6(C)(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 14. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to either release the seized stock in favor of the petitioner No.1 forthwith or else pay the amount equivalent to the value of the seized stock to the petitioner No.1 without imposing any conditions strictly in accordance with Section 6(C)(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In so far as the 3rd party security which is furnished at the time of release of vehicle in favor of the petitioner No.2 is concerned, the same shall be released forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:24.12.2025 Ksj