APHC010563782010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] FRIDAY, THE 25th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 130/2010 Between: 1. SRI KONJETI SANKAR RAO, TENALI, GUNTUR DIST., & ANR., PROPRIETOR, M/S. SRI RAM AGENCIES GOPAL REDDY ROAD, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. CH. KONDAIAH, M/S. JYOTHENDRA DAL MILL GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY P P HYDERABAD ANR, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (P.D.S.), 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, MACHILIPATNAM KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Order in E.C. Appeal No. 6 / 2009, dated 31-12-2009 on the file of the District & Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam in confirming the Order of the Joint Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam in E.C.P. No. 350 / 2008 dated 08-12-2008 and consequently dismiss the E.C.P. No. 350 / 2008. IA NO:1 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 160 OF 2010 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 -2- CRL.R.C. No.130 of 2010 pleased to dispense with the filing of the Order copy of the Joint Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam. IA NO: 2 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 191 OF 2010 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 direct the 2nd respondent Joint Collector not to invoke the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioners at the time of interim release of the stocks pending disposal of the Crl.R.C., Counsel for the Petitioners: 1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondents: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following order: 1. Instant criminal revision case has been preferred against the order dated 31.12.2009 passed in E.C. Appeal No.6 of 2009 on the file of learned District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, confirming the order dated 08.12.2008 passed by the Joint Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, in E.C.P. No.350 of 2008. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: 2.1. On receipt of a credible information that some traders have allegedly stored pulses in the Central Warehousing Corporation godown (hereinafter referred to as “CWC godown”), Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada; Special Deputy Tahsildar, along with Food Inspector, Vuyyuru, and Vigilance officials, after securing presence of mediators, inspected the said godown. -3- CRL.R.C. No.130 of 2010 2.2. During the course of inspection, the Manager of CWC godown was asked to produce the particulars of millers/traders who had stored their stocks therein. On verification of records, it was found that M/s.Sriram Agencies, Tenali, had stored 98.98 quintals of red gram under Receipt No.550/A3/3. On enquiry, it was found that M/s. Sriram Agencies possessed a licence to deal in pulses business in Guntur District only. Thereafter the said stock was seized under a panchanama and a report was submitted to concerned authority under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, “E.C.Act”). After prima facie satisfying that stock had stored illegally and conducting business of pulses without requisite licence, a charge was framed against the petitioners, which reads as under: “The respondents have unauthorisedly stored 98.98 quintals of red gram in the CWC Godown, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, without any licence or permission from the competent authority and thereby violated Clauses 3(1) and 3(2) of the A.P. Pulses (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2007.” 2.3. The petitioners were issued a show-cause notice, to which they submitted their written explanation. After considering explanation and hearing the petitioners, learned Joint Collector has passed the impugned order, thereby held that the charge was proved and seized stock is confiscated to 100% to the Government and the same be adjusted from the bank guarantee of petitioner. -4- CRL.R.C. No.130 of 2010 2.4. The order of confiscation was under challenge before the appellate authority. Learned appellate authority, after hearing the parties, has dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of confiscation of the value of the seized stock. Hence, the present criminal revision case. 3. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: 3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are carrying wholesale and retail business in pulses under licence issued by the competent authority. The second petitioner had sold 101 bags of red gram pulses weighing GMT 10.100 kgs., in the CWC godown, Vijayawada, to the first petitioner, under Agriculture Market Committee permit and credit invoice, the sale consideration was paid by cheque. The transaction was duly reflected in the respective stock registers of the petitioners. After purchase, the said stock was shown in the stock register of the first petitioner. 3.2. Learned counsel further submits that the first petitioner having sufficient licence to conduct wholesale and retail business, only stored the pulses in the CWC godown, Vijayawada, though he has licence for Krishna District. It is submitted that storing red gram pulses in the CWC godown, Vijayawada, does not itself reflect any mens rea of the petitioner that he had indulged in any clandestine or illegal transaction or business. He further submits that merely storing red gram pulses in CWC godown, Vijayawada, instead of storing it in his licenced godown, -5- CRL.R.C. No.130 of 2010 at Guntur District, itself is not a reason for confiscation of 100% of storing pulses. 3.3. Learned counsel also submits that there is no evidence to show that the petitioners had ever conducted any illegal business. Though the petitioners have submitted explanation regarding the wholesale and retail business of pulses, the concerned authority without properly appreciating the facts has illegally hold that the charge was proved. Further, the order of 100% confiscation of seized stock to the Government is exorbitant and it is illegal. He further submits that learned appellate court should have held that the seized stocks are sold to the first petitioner by the 2nd petitioner after paying all taxes to the Government and under proper receipt. Moreover, the stock register has sufficiently mentioned the respective stocks after purchase. The Manager of CWC also produced necessary documents regarding the sale of said pulses from the 2nd petitioner to the 1st petitioner, thereby the order of learned appellate court is also illegal and liable to be set aside. 3.4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in M/s.T.G.L. Groundnut Corporation, TGL Road, Adoni, Kurnool District, represented by its partner T G Taranath and another v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Additional Commissioner of Civil -6- CRL.R.C. No.130 of 2010 Supplies and Ex.officio Secretary to Government, Secretariat Bldgs., Hyderabad and others1 , wherein it was held that not every violation should result in confiscation of the goods. Paragraph 8 of the said judgment reads as under: “8. The position is equally so in the case of the groundnuts found in the premises of Neeta Transporters. If the Joint Collector was satisfied that the explanation offered by the second petitioner was “reasonable and logical too”, the matter ends. It must be borne in mind that not every violation should result in the confiscation of goods. Only such violations as are committed consciously with a view to defeat the provisions of law to obtain some undue advantage have to be viewed seriously. The violations alleged in the present case are purely technical and the authorities below should have taken a more reasonable attitude is of the matter. In the circumstances, I am unable to uphold the order of the Joint Collector confiscating the groundnuts of 26,845 kgs. Found in the premises of the Neeta Transporters. The first respondent acted arbitrarily in affirming the confiscation in the impugned order. The order of confiscation is accordingly quashed. There shall be a direction to the respondents to release the stocks forthwith to the second petitioner.” 4. SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR APEPARING FOR THE STATE: 4.1. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor raised objection and submits that the impugned order passed by learned appellate court is justifiable. The petitioners have no licence to store the said pulses in CWC godown, Vijayawada, but have a licence to store pulses at Guntur District only. Storing pulses at different locations other than in the licencing godown is itself illegal. 1 APLJ (Criminal) 1989 (AP) 25 -7- CRL.R.C. No.130 of 2010 4.2. He further submits that learned appellate court has considered all the aspects relating to the violation of the control order and passed the impugned order. Accordingly, there is no merit to entertain the petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Perused the order passed by the Joint Collector, Krishna District in respect of seizing stock and confiscation of 100% of the seized pulses and also perused the order passed by learned appellate court. 6. OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT: 6.1. It is an admitted fact that both the petitioners are having wholesale and retail business licence from the competent authority. They have purchased the pulses from the authority by way of proper bills and stocks were shown in their respective stock registers. The special Deputy Tahasildar, PDS, Nandigama, when inspected CWC godown, Vijayawada, found that pulses were illegally stored there and they are showing under the stock of the first petitioner. On enquiry, the Manager CWC godown produced a copy of deposit and copy of way bill. The first petitioner, on query from the Manager of the said CWC godown, replied that he purchased the said stock of pulses from the 2nd petitioner with proper invoices, they have pulses licence in Guntur District only, but it was stored in CWC godown, Vijayawada. Hence, the petitioners were charged for violation of Clauses 3(1) and 3(2) of the A.P. Pulses -8- CRL.R.C. No.130 of 2010 (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2007. The said control order reads as under: “3. Licensing of Dealers. (1) No person shall carry on business as a dealer or producer or a commission agent dealing in pulses, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued in this behalf by the Licensing Authority. Provided that persons taken licences during the period from 23-9-2006 to 28-2-2007 shall invariably take licences afresh under this Order. (2) For the purpose of this clause, any person who stores in quantity of more than 10 quintals of one or more of pulses put together at any one time, unless the contrary is proved be deemed to be carrying on business as a Dealer, Producer or a Commission Agent dealing in pulses, under this Order. (3) A separate license shall be obtained by a dealer for each place of business and storage point also except in respect of places of purchase. (4) A producer (Miller)/Commission Agent shall take wholesale licence from the licensing authority.” 6.2. The Joint Collector, Krishna District, in the proceedings under Section 6A of E.C. Act has held that though the petitioners were licence holders, they were not authorised to store the pulses at CWC godown, Vijayawada. Accordingly, the Joint Collector, Krishna District, in passing confiscation order is of the view that the conduct of the petitioners clearly amount to storage of pulses beyond the permissible limit without in possession of valid licence to store the pulses in the premises. Hence, the charge was proved. -9- CRL.R.C. No.130 of 2010 6.3. Learned appellate court has also analysed the entire matter and is of the view that, though the pulses were purchased under valid invoices, the first petitioner was not authorised to store them at CWC godown, Vijayawada. Further, the second petitioner was not authorised to store pulses more than the quantity permitted under the licence. According to the licence, for storing any quantity of pulses beyond the permissible limit, a dealership licence is required, which the petitioners did not possess at that relevant point of time. Thereby learned appellate court has confirmed the order of confiscation. 6.4. In the judgment passed by a coordinate bench of combined High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad, it appears that in the case in hand before Coordinate Bench, there are violation of licence condition by storing some of the ground nuts in another location beyond the licence premises. Thereby, the Joint Collector has conducted enquiry and seized the entire stock of ground nut not only stored in separate locations, but also stored in his licence premises. On analysing the facts, Coordinate Bench of the combined High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad, was of the view that merely storing some portion of the stock at different locations itself does not allow the Joint Collector to confiscate the entire stock. Thereby, the matter was remanded. It was observed by the Coordinate Bench that the Joint Collector had acted in an arbitrary manner. Thus, the matter was remanded for a fresh decision. -10- CRL.R.C. No.130 of 2010 6.5. In the present case, the stock reflected in the stock register belongs to the first petitioner and was stored in the CWC godown at Vijayawada, though he has no licence. The entire stock of red gram stored, weighing 98.98 quintals, was seized. The factual situation of the cited case before learned Coordinate Bench of the combined High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad, is different from that of the present case. Thus, it is distinguishable. Fact suggests there are violation of concerned control order. 6.6. Learned appellate court has properly assessed the entire issue. I find no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by appellate court. Admittedly, there are clear violation of control order under Clauses 3(1) and (2) of the A.P. Pulses (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2007, thereby the order of confiscation is justified. 7. Under the above observation, criminal revision case is dismissed as devoid of merit. 8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision case shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dt.25.09.2026 BV