Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 288 (AP)

A. Padmanabha Reddy v. State of A. P.

2019-10-23

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2019
ORDER : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. 1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners-A1 to A4 seek to quash the proceedings against them| in Cr. No. 58 of 2012 of Muppalla Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'the E.C. Act'). 2. The Vigilance & Enforcement Officer, Guntur, along with Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies inspected the premises of M/s. Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Rice Traders, Narnepadu Village, of which petitioner-A1 is the Managing Partner. On 12.06.2012 at 3.00 a.m. they found some vehicles were parked and mutha coolies were unloading the rice bags in the mill from Bolero truck bearing registration No. AP7Y3858. On enquiry, the petitioner-A2 stated that himself and A1 took the rice mill on lease in October, 2011 and petitioners-A1 to A4 have been purchasing PDS rice and supplying the levy to the Government. The officials found B-Register was maintained only upto 06.06.2012 and it was not updated. On verification of stock, among other items, they found 160 quintals of PDS rice. The officials thus found that the accused were purchasing PDS rice; not updating the stock register; copy of the Food Grain license was not available in the rice mill and thus, the accused have violated the provisions of the E.C. Act. Thus, the Vigilance Officer requested the Tahsildar, Muppalla to register the case under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act in the Court of District Collector, Guntur. They also requested the Tahsildar to lodge a criminal case. The Tahsildar accordingly gave report dated 15.06.2012 to the Station House Officer, Muppalla which was registered as case in Cr. No. 58/2012 for the offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 7 of the E.C. Act against the petitioners-A1 to A4, besides E.C. Act case No. 183/2012-S7 was initiated before the Collector & District Magistrate, Guntur. Hence, the instant petition to quash the criminal case. 3. Heard Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence under Section 420 IPC nor violated the provision under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and a false case has been foisted against them. 3. Heard Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence under Section 420 IPC nor violated the provision under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and a false case has been foisted against them. He would submit that in E.C. Act case No. 183/2012-S7, after full-fledged enquiry the District Collector held the charges framed against the petitioners were not sustainable. However, having found that they have not updated the B-Register, ordered to confiscate 10% of seized stocks to the Government. Learned counsel would submit that in the light of the proceedings of the District Collector the criminal case, which is based on the same set of facts, is not sustainable and its continuation amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and prayed to quash the proceedings. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal petition. 6. I perused the copy of the order dated 01.06.2013 passed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Guntur. The explanation of the petitioners before the Collector was that they procured 270 quintals of rice and stocked in 540 bags @ 50 Kgs per bag and delivered to the F.C.I., under levy and the same was rejected by the F.C.I., as quality was not upto mark. After verification at the mill, having found that 80 quintals of rice stock was in good condition, the petitioners-A1 to A4 have obtained another 190 quintals of rice and added to the remaining 80 quintals and again sent to F.C.I. So far as the left over 190 quintals of rejected rice is concerned, they sold 30 quintals to poultry forms and balance 160 quintals was available with them at the time of inspection by the Vigilance officials. Thus, the petitioners took the plea that the said 160 quintals of rice was not the PDS rice purchased from the cardholders, but it was levy rice which was rejected by the F.C.I. This explanation was found favour with the Collector & District Magistrate. Thus, the petitioners took the plea that the said 160 quintals of rice was not the PDS rice purchased from the cardholders, but it was levy rice which was rejected by the F.C.I. This explanation was found favour with the Collector & District Magistrate. He held as under: "All the above clearly disclose that the rice miller while sending the FC1 labeled rejected PDS rice stocks to the poultry forms, the Inspecting Officers came to the mill premises and presumed that the rice miller indulged in clandestine business with PDS rice stocks and without conducting proper enquiry simply recorded the statements from the individuals who are available in the mill premises at the time of inspection under the process best known to them. Perused the records, it is also noticed that the rice mill written the B-Register upto 6.6.2012, whereas the inspection took pace is 12.6.2012. It seems that the rice miller failed to update the B-Register. However, the Inspecting Officers verified the ground stocks available in the mill premises including the alleged PDS rice stocks with reference to book balance, found no variations in the stocks. In view of the above and in exercise of powers vested u/sec. 6-A(1) of E.C. Act, 1955, I hereby order to confiscate 10% of seized stocks to the Government and to release the remaining 90% of seized stocks to the 1st respondent, as he failed to update the B-Register and to release the seized vehicles to the owners of the vehicles i.e., 4th, 6th and 7th respondents unconditionally, as they were not involved in any clandestine business with PDS rice stocks." Thus, the Collector ordered to confiscate 10% of seized stocks for not updating the B-Register. He did not give a finding that the petitioners were doing clandestine business in PDS rice. Be that as it may, the present F.I.R. is an offshoot of the complaint lodged by the Tahsildar, Muppalla on the same set of facts. Since in the proceedings before the Collector no finding was given that the petitioners were doing clandestine business in PDS rice, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for petitioners, continuation of the criminal proceedings on the same set of facts would amount to abuse of the process of the Court (vide State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604 ). 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Cr. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604 ). 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Cr. No. 58 of 2012 of Muppalla Police Station, Guntur District, are hereby quashed against the petitioners-A1 to A4. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.