Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 514 (AP)

Sai Krupa Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-05-03

V.SRINIVAS

body2024
ORDER : 1. Assailing the judgment dated 07.04.2009 in Crl. Appeal No. 72 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge at Kurnool, confirming the order dated 21.12.2007 in Rc.DSO/CS1-EC-No. 7 of 2007 passed by the learned Collector & District Magistrate at Kurnool, but the quantum of confiscation of seized stock is reduced from 100% to 20%, the petitioner filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w. 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The revision case was admitted on 29.07.2009. 3. The shorn of necessary facts are that: (i) On 14.02.2007 at about 04.00 p.m. an inspection team lead by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Kurnool has inspected M/s. Vasundara Godown situated at Pedapadu Village of Kallur Mandal and found that M/s. Sai Krupa Traders, Kurnool has been doing clandestine business of pulses by storing 247 quintals of red gram without obtaining license, thereby, contravening the conditions of license issued under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution Order 1982 and instructions vide Memo No. 1519/CS1(1)/2006 dated 18.12.2006 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh Consumer Affairs Food & Civil Supplies (C.S.) Department. (ii) In view of the contravention, the Assistant Supply Officer, Kurnool seized the above-said stock of M/s. Sai Krupa Traders, Kurnool under the cover of Panchanama. 4. The case has been taken on file under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to “E.C. Act”) by the learned Collector & District Magistrate at Kurnool. After considering the material available on record, on 21.12.2007, the learned Collector passed order, vide Rc.DSO/CS1-EC-No. 07 of 2007, concluded that petitioner has stored the stock without having valid license, violating the conditions of license issued by the Government, thereby, confiscating the entire seized stock of the petitioner. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, vide Crl. Appeal No. 72 of 2008, before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge at Kurnool and the same was partly allowed, vide judgment dated 07.04.2009, confirming the order of the learned District Collector, but the quantum of confiscation is reduced from 100% to 20% of the seized stock. 6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner. 7. 6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner. 7. Heard Smt. P. Madhavi, learned legal aid counsel appointed for the petitioner and Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court?” 9. Sri Smt. P. Madhavi, learned legal aid counsel appointed for the petitioner submits that the learned District Collector has not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 6 A & 6B of E.C. Act, which resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the learned District Collector did not take into consideration that all the restrictions for trade in pulses were removed in the year 2002 and obtaining of license does not arise; that the application for renewal of license was kept pending by the officials, if the same is not renewed with one month, deemed that the license is renewed, but the same is not considered by the learned District Collector; that the seized stock was purchased from the farmers with valid receipts and payment of VAT by obtaining registration numbers and the same is not smuggled goods; that first Appellate Court failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective, erroneously confiscated 20% of the seized stock by confirming the order of the District Collector and the same is liable to be set aside. 10. Against the same, Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent submits that the petitioner has been carrying pulses business and illegally stored the 247 quintals of red gram without obtaining any license and violating the orders of the Government; that as per Section of the E.C. Act, Government empower to issue necessary instructions for the purpose of regulation, distribution and movement of essential commodities, in the interest of public; that the learned District Collector has meticulously followed the procedure prescribed under Section 6B of the Act; that the learned Sessions Judge by considering all the aspects rightly confiscated the seized stock of 20% and that there are no merits in the present revision, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. There is no dispute that the petitioner has been carrying pulses business at Kurnool and that on 14.02.2007, the official of Vigilance conducted raid and found illegal storage of 247 quintals of red gram in M/s. Vasundhara Godown situated at Peddapadu Village of Kallur Mandal, without any license by the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that no appeal or revision preferred by the State against the findings of the learned Sessions Judge for reducing the quantum of confiscation of seized stock from 100% to 20%. 12. The foremost contention of the petitioner is that the learned District Collector has not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 6B of the Act while ordering confiscation of the seized stock. Now, it is relevant to refer Section 6B of Essential Commodities Act, 1955: 6B. Issue of show cause notice before confiscation of foodgrains: (1) No order confiscating any essential commodity, package, covering or receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be made under section 6A unless the owner of such essential commodity, package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance or the person from whom it is seized: (a) is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the essential commodity package, covering or receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel, or other conveyance. (b) is given an opportunity of making a presentation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation. (c) is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. 13. On perusal of orders passed by the learned District Collect, on 15.11.2007, petitioner appeared before the learned District Collector and requested to release the stock, but despite of opportunity given by the learned Collector, petitioner did not place any relevant material to justify the claim. Furthermore, the interim orders passed by the collector, dated 27.02.2007 served on the petitioner, which is also not in dispute. The material available on record clinchingly proves that the learned District Collector has followed the procedure contemplated under Section 6B of the E.C. Act by giving considerable opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate its claim. 14. Furthermore, the interim orders passed by the collector, dated 27.02.2007 served on the petitioner, which is also not in dispute. The material available on record clinchingly proves that the learned District Collector has followed the procedure contemplated under Section 6B of the E.C. Act by giving considerable opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate its claim. 14. Another contention raised by the petitioner is that all the restrictions for trade in pulses were removed in the year, 2002 and obtaining of license does not arise. It is not in dispute that G.O.Ms. No. 64, CA, F& SC (CSI) Department was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 23.09.2006 and also issued a Memo No. 1519/CSI(I)/2006, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CSI) Department, dated 18.12.2006, stating that “wide publicity of the notification may be given at the District/village level so that each and every dealer in pulses is made clear that if any unauthorized hoarding of pulses is noticed, action shall be initiated against him including registering a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.” 15. Even on perusal of the order of the learned District Collector, he had taken all the steps for wide publication of the said notification. As such, the petitioner cannot claim that the raid conducted by the vigilance officials on 14.02.2007, have no sanctity. Thereby, the petitioner committed violation conditions of license issued under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution Order, 1982 and Government Instructions issued vide Memo No. 1519/CSI(1)/2006, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CSI) Department, dated 18.12.2006, by illegally stocking 247 Quintals of red gram without obtaining license. 16. Furthermore, it is also contention of the petitioner that the application for renewal of license was kept pending with the authorities, as such, no such violation attributed against the petitioner. To substantiate this contention, except bare statement, petitioner did not place any material before the Court below, as such, the same cannot be taken as a ground to set aside the well-articulated judgment of the first Appellate Court. 17. It is settled law that in view of the categorical findings on facts by the learned Sessions Judge, this Court being Revisional Court is not expected to set aside the same without any material of perversity or manifest error in the findings arrived by the Court below. 18. 17. It is settled law that in view of the categorical findings on facts by the learned Sessions Judge, this Court being Revisional Court is not expected to set aside the same without any material of perversity or manifest error in the findings arrived by the Court below. 18. All these facts go to show that the learned Sessions Judge, rightly came to conclusion that the petitioner violated the conditions of license issued by the Government and illegally stocking 247 quintals of red gram and that there is no apparent failure on the part of the Sessions Court in appreciating the material available on record. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no perversity or flaw in the findings recorded by Sessions Court in confiscating the 20% of the seized stock. 19. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no legally valid grounds to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Sessions Court, as such, the present criminal revision has no merits. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. 20. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 07.04.2009 in Crl. Appeal No. 72 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge at Kurnool. 21. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 22. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.