Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 480 (AP)

P. Raja Gopalaiah v. State Of A. P. , Rep By PP.

2023-03-01

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

body2023
ORDER : This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners, who are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2006, on the file of Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, challenging the judgment, dated 01.04.2009, where under the learned Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, dismissed the same confirming the order passed by the learned Joint Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Ananthapuramu in Rc.No.K3/4900/1999, dated 27.02.2006. 2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Court below for the sake of the convenience. 3. The proceedings in Rc.No.K3/4900/1999, dated 27.02.2006, on the file of Joint Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Ananthapuramu, arose out of the report submitted by the Inspector of Police, VCCS F/S, Tirupati, under Section 6- A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 4. The case of the complainant before the Court below is that the Inspector of Police, VCCS F/S, Tirupati, along with his staff inspected M/s. Sree Lakshmi Narasimha Rice & Oil Mill, Bukkapatnam, on 16.06.1999 at 11-30 A.M. and found that the management of the mill is indulging in clandestine business without maintaining true and correct account and keeping huge stocks in the mill premises. Hence, they seized ground balance of the stocks under a panchanama for contravention of Clause-3 of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 r/w Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and submitted report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. Then, the Joint Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Ananthapuramu i.e., the Court below after giving opportunity of hearing to the other side ordered for confiscation of 30% of the seized stocks. 5. The charges that are framed by the Joint Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Ananthapuramu, are as follows: Charge No.1:- The respondent failed to produce licence to do the business in food grains and failed to produce any record to run the mill and to do business in food grains, as such, contravened Clause-3 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 and condition No.3 of the said order. Charge No.2:- The respondent kept huge stocks in the mill premises without valid documents and thereby contravened Clause-11 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 and further Clause-16(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. 6. Charge No.2:- The respondent kept huge stocks in the mill premises without valid documents and thereby contravened Clause-11 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 and further Clause-16(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. 6. The Joint Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Ananthapuramu, issued a show cause notice to the respondent and the respondent participated in the enquiry and raised a contention that he is running a non-trading mill and application of Clause-3 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 is not applicable and Nagendra is not the Managing Partner and he is only a construction worker. Sri P. Rajagopalaiah is the claim petitioner and he is Managing Partner of the mill and the seized stocks belong to farmers. The Managing Partner maintained farmers account in Form-A Register and the vigilance officials did not look into the same purposefully. 7. The learned Joint Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Ananthapuram, negativing the contention of the respondent, observed that Clause-10 of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 stipulates that licensed rice miller should not undertake custom milling of paddy without permission of the Collector and Form-A Register shows that about 45 bags (31.50 quintals of paddy) was hulled from 24.05.1999 to 30.05.1999 and from 01.06.1999 to 15.06.1999, 239 bags of paddy was hulled (167.9 quintals) without obtaining the permission from the Collector or an Officer authorised by him as required under Clause-10 of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. Further 155 bags (108.50 quintals) of paddy were hulled during June, 1999 and 55 bags of paddy were received on 30.05.1999 for hulling and it was kept idle without hulling. On 06.06.1999 though 46 bags of paddy were hulled, it was not delivered to the farmers. The Joint Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Ananthapuramu, also observed that miller exceeded three quintals of cultivators and one quintal of agricultural labourers. With the above said findings, the Court below ordered confiscation of 30% of the stocks. 8. Felt aggrieved of the same, the appellants filed Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2006 before the Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, who upheld the order of the Joint Collectorcum- Additional District Magistrate, Ananthapuramu. Felt aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful appellants filed the present Criminal Revision Case, challenging the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2006. 9. 8. Felt aggrieved of the same, the appellants filed Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2006 before the Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, who upheld the order of the Joint Collectorcum- Additional District Magistrate, Ananthapuramu. Felt aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful appellants filed the present Criminal Revision Case, challenging the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2006. 9. Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the point for determination is whether the impugned order suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the order? Point:- 10. Sri G.V. Sreerama Murthy, learned counsel, representing the learned counsel for the petitioners, would contend in accordance with the grounds of Criminal Revision Case. 11. The substance of the grounds of Criminal Revision Case is that as the Rice Milling Act was repealed, no permission was required to run non-trading rice mill, as such, the question of non-production of accounts would not arise. Clause-10 of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984, does not attract to the non-trading rice mills. So, the first petitioner had no need to take any licence. The Court below erred in framing the charges. The Court below failed to understand that the stocks belonged to the farmers and there was no clandestine activity. The Court below ought to have seen that the miller in question is a non-trading mill. The appellate Court erred in giving finding that the contention of the appellants that the stocks belonged to the farmers is not believable. No licensing order is required to run custom milling operation, as such, Criminal Revision case is liable to be allowed. 12. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, sought to support the judgment of the Court below on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, rightly passed orders looking into legal aspects, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the light of the above contentions, there is no dispute that the claim of the petitioners that the first petitioner is running a non-trading rice mill is not in dispute. 13. In the light of the above contentions, there is no dispute that the claim of the petitioners that the first petitioner is running a non-trading rice mill is not in dispute. To decide the contention of the petitioners such as that the first petitioner need not take any permission to run non-trading rice mill and the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing & Distribution) Order, 1982, are not applicable to his case and further the Clause-10 of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 has no application to his case, etc., it is necessary to look into Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008. 14. As seen from Clause-3, it provides issue and renewal of licence. Clause-3(i) contemplates that every application for a licence or renewal thereof shall be made to the licensing authority in Form-A as prescribed in Schedule-III. Clause-3(ii) provides that every licence issued, re-issued or renewed under this Order shall be Form-B as prescribed in Schedule-III. Clause-3(iii) is that every application for renewal shall be made along with the license before expiry of the period of license. Here, the allegation is that the respondent before the Court below violated Clause-3 and Order-3. 15. It is to be noticed that the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008, has a definition clause and according to Clause-2 of (I), rice miller means the owner or any other person in charge of a rice mill holding a valid license issued under this Order. Further Clause-4 of (I) refers to non-trading rice miller and it defines that non-trading miller means a miller who does not purchase paddy and mill into rice for sale but who does milling of paddy of agriculturists, agricultural labourers, etc., for personal consumption on custom milling/hire-working basis by taking milling charges. 16. A perusal of the above reveals that a rice miller needs to obtain a valid licence according to the Order. Clause- 3(iii) discloses that the licence needs to be renewed before its expiry. At this juncture, it is pertinent to look into Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. Clause-2 is the definitions clause. It shows that licensed dealer means a person holding a valid licence under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982. Clause- 3(iii) discloses that the licence needs to be renewed before its expiry. At this juncture, it is pertinent to look into Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. Clause-2 is the definitions clause. It shows that licensed dealer means a person holding a valid licence under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982. It also contains a definition as to the licensed miller as like Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982. It contains a definition as to what is custom milling. So, Clause-2(c) defines it as milling of paddy not belonging to miller into rice in his rice mill on payment of milling charges in cash or kind. So, the basis for the first appellant who was the sole respondent before the Court below to run a non-trading mill must have been only after obtaining due licence under Clause-3 of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order. So, the contention of the appellants that in view of the abolition of Rice Milling Regulation Act, 1958, the question of obtaining any permission to run non-trading mill does not arise. In fact, to run a rice mill whether it is trading rice mill or non-trading rice mill, one has to obtain permission in the light of the provisions contained in Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order. The contention of the appellants that the Court below framed charges erroneously is not sustainable under law. 17. Now, coming to the Clause-10 of Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984, no licensed rice mill shall undertake custom milling of paddy except under and in accordance with the permit in form set out in Schedule-VIII issued by the Collector or an Officer authorised by him in this behalf. Provided that no permit is required for undertaking custom milling of paddy brought by a cultivator from the stocks of paddy grown by him or an agricultural labourer out of the stocks of paddy earned by him as wages. It contained an explanation that no permit is required for undertaking custom milling of paddy brought by the cultivator from the stocks of paddy grown by him to a maximum of three quintals or by an agricultural labourer out of the stocks of paddy earned by him as wages up to a maximum of one quintal at a time in a month. 18. 18. Though the first appellant is a non-trading rice mill, but, he is bound by the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. Apart from this, Clause-16 (1) deals that every licensed miller and licensed dealer shall maintain a register indicating the quantity of paddy milled and rice delivered under levy during the day in the relevant Form. 19. Here, the substance of the allegations are that when the inspecting authority inspected the premises, they found that management is indulging in clandestine business without maintaining true and correct account and keeping huge stocks. The contention of the petitioners that vigilance officials purposefully did not look into the record is not tenable. Apart from this, the order of the learned Joint Collector-cum- Additional District Magistrate, Ananthapuramu, reveals the quantity of the paddy which was milled by the first appellant. The first appellant did not maintain proper record when the vigilance officials inspected the rice mill to furnish the information with regard to the name of the farmers to whom the stocks belonged to. So, without being borne out by any record whatsoever, it appears the first appellant stored huge stock which is nothing but in clear violation of the provisions of law as referred to above. 20. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, rightly appreciated the contentions and rightly dismissed the Criminal Appeal. The contention of the petitioners that first petitioner need not obtain any permission to run non-trading rice mill, etc., deserves no merits, in the light of the reasons furnished supra. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 21. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.