APHC010390512026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 855 OF 2026 Between: 1. Muthukuru Srinivasulu, S/o. Ramanjaneyulu,aged about 48 years, Occ Business,R/o 13/94-2, Kondapeta, Banaganipalli Townand Mandal, Nandyal District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,Department of Civil Supplies. 2. The Collector, Civil Supplies,Annamayya District, Rayachoty. 3. The Tahsildar, Rajampet Mandal, Annamayya District. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: VANGA ANITA Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following order: ORDER: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to set aside the judgment passed in Ref.No.CS(2)/96/2024 dated 18.12.2024, on the file of the Collector (Civil Supplies), Annamayya District, Rayachoty, as confirmed in Crl.A.No.10 of 2025 dated 16.03.2026 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Mr. G. Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mrs. Vanga Anita, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Collector (Civil Supplies), Annamayya District, Rayachoty exercising powers under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the E.C. Act’), vide Ref. No. CS(2)/96/2024, dated 18.12.2024, directed confiscation of 100% of the value of the seized stock, valued at Rs.7,49,375/-, and imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of the seized vehicle bearing No. AP-21-TF-2888, on the ground that the rice was being transported without the requisite documentation. 4. Respondent No.3 submitted a report under Section 6-A of ‘the E.C. Act’, to the Collector (CS), Annamayya District, stating that the petitioner had violated Clause 19(f) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. On receipt of the report submitted under Section 6-A of the ‘E.C. Act’, the learned Collector (CS), Annamayya District, issued a show- cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation. After conducting an enquiry, the learned Collector (CS), Annamayya District, released the seized vehicle to its owner and ordered confiscation of 100% of the value of the seized stock in favour of the State under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act. He also imposed a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- on the owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP-21-TF-2888 for the irregularities committed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa. However, by order dated 16.03.2026, the appeal preferred in Crl.A.No.10 of 2025 was dismissed, thereby confirming the order passed by the learned Collector (CS), Annamayya District. 5. In the present revision, while reiterating the grounds of revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the lorry and further contends that the order passed by the learned Collector and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge is disproportionate to the charge allegedly proved against the petitioner and that the order of confiscation is exorbitant. He further contends that the imposition of a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- is also excessive. It is further contended that the evidence on record has not been properly appreciated. 6. On perusal of the record, it is evident that a charge was framed against the petitioner for violation of Clause 19(f) of the Control Order. The explanation offered by the petitioner was that the seized rice was not meant for distribution under the PDS and that it was intended to be transported to Chennai Port. It was further stated that the rice had been collected from the farmers. However, there is no material on record to substantiate or establish that the rice was, in fact, procured from the farmers. No affidavit from any third party was filed in support of the said contention. At least, the farmers who had raised the crop did not come forward to file any application or furnish any material in support of the petitioner's claim. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of confiscation is held to be sustainable. However, confiscation of 100% of the value of the seized stock to the State and imposition of a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- on the owner of the vehicle are found to be on the higher side and exorbitant. In the opinion of this Court, confiscation of 50% of the value of the seized stock under Section 6-A of ‘the E.C. Act’, and reduction of the fine imposed on the owner of the lorry to Rs.50,000/- would adequately meet the ends of justice. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of by confirming the order of confiscation, while modifying the extent of confiscation from 100% to 50% of the value of the seized stock and reducing the fine imposed on the owner of the lorry from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. The remaining 50% of the value of the seized stock and Rs.50,000/- out of the fine imposed on the owner of the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner, being the owner of the vehicle, forthwith. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Interim order, if any, granted earlier and Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 11.08.2026. JLSR 133 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.855 of 2026 Date: 11.08.2026 JLSR