Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 488 (TS)

Mahajan Sachin v. State of Telangana

2025-04-30

JUVVADI SRIDEVI

body2025
ORDER : JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J. The Criminal Revision Case No.3076 of 2018 is filed by the petitioner-driver of TATA Ace seeking to set aside the Common Judgment dated 28.09.2018 in Criminal Appeal Nos.6 and 21 of 2018 (for short ‘impugned Judgment) passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Nizamabad (for short ‘learned appellate Court’) wherein the Order dated 04.01.2018 in Case No. CS6/211/2017-1 passed by the learned District Collector, Nizamabad (FAC) (for short ‘the learned District Collector’), was modified by reducing the confiscation from 100% value of entire seized stocks to confiscation of 40% of the value. 02. The Criminal Revision Case No.3080 of 2018 is filed by the petitioner-owner of the rice mill seeking to set aside impugned Judgment passed by the learned appellate Court wherein the Order dated 04.01.2018 in Case No. CS6/211/2017-1 passed by the learned District Collector, was modified by reducing the penalty imposed from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. 03. These Criminal Revision Cases are arising out of the same impugned Judgment and subject matter involved in both the matters is one and the same, thereby, these matters are being disposed of by way of a Common Order. 04. Heard Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record. 05. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.10.2017 at about 10:00 PM., on credible information the complainant proceeded to the premises of M/s.Chandra Rice Mill, Srinivasnagar, Bodhan duly securing panchas and noticed a TATA Ace bearing No. TS 16 UB 3859 (for short ‘vehicle’) loaded with 20 rice bags. The petitioner-driver disclosed that the said rice was being transported to Narsi Road. On suspecting that the said rice is a PDS rice, the complainant took the mill into custody and found 266.50, 169.25, 154.00, 84.50 and 8.00(loaded in vehicle) quintals of rice. The said rice has been seized. As there was a contravention of the Clause 17(e) of the Telangana State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2016, (for short ‘TSPDS Control Order, 2016) a case in Crime No.312 of 2017 was registered. 06. The said rice has been seized. As there was a contravention of the Clause 17(e) of the Telangana State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2016, (for short ‘TSPDS Control Order, 2016) a case in Crime No.312 of 2017 was registered. 06. The learned District Collector after conducting the enquiry found that the petitioner-owner of the mill is involved in purchasing and selling of PDS rice for illegal gains and that the petitioner-owner of the mill was found in contravention of Clause 17(e) of the TSPDS Control Order, 2016 read with Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and ordered for confiscation of 100% value of the seized stocks worth Rs.15,78,875/- in favour of the Government and further imposed penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- on the petitioner-driver of the vehicle. 07. Aggrieved by the said Order passed by the learned District Collector, both the petitioners preferred the Criminal Appeals before the learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court vide impugned Common Judgment modified the order of the learned District Collector confiscating 100% value of entire seized stocks to confiscation of 40% of the value. So also, reduced the penalty imposed on vehicle from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. 08. Aggrieved by the above Common Judgment, the present Criminal Revision Cases are preferred by the petitioners. 09. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged contraventions. As per Clause 2(s) of the TSPDS Control Order, 2016, the rice is scheduled commodity. As per Section 3 of the Act, the rice is not shown in the schedule to the Act. The rice involved in the present case is not proved as a PDS rice meant for public distribution. There was a Control Order regulating the purchase and sale of rice, which came into force on 28.07.2008 under Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealer (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 and it was in force till 30.09.2014 and thereafter the same was not extended. Therefore, there is no prohibition with regard to the purchase, sale, storage and transportation of rice and paddy as on the date of the alleged seizure. Hence, both the learned District Collector as well as learned appellate Court have committed error in confiscating the rice and imposing penalty on the vehicle driver. Therefore, there is no prohibition with regard to the purchase, sale, storage and transportation of rice and paddy as on the date of the alleged seizure. Hence, both the learned District Collector as well as learned appellate Court have committed error in confiscating the rice and imposing penalty on the vehicle driver. Hence, while praying to set aside the impugned Common Judgment by allowing these Criminal Revision Cases, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Kailash Prasad Yadav and another v. State of Jharkhan and another , [ 2007 (5) SCC 769 (Indian Kanoon)] wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of India at Paragraph No.12 it was held that: “12. Yet again, in Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District v. Rudolph Fernandes [ (2000) 3 SCC 306 ], whereupon again Mr. Singh has relied upon, it was held: "6. In the light of the aforesaid provisions, the second proviso to Section 6-A [sic 6-A(1)] is required to be considered. First it is to be stated that the proviso limits the power of the competent authority to recover fine up to the market price for releasing the animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance sought to be confiscated. So maximum fine that can be levied in lieu of confiscation should not exceed the market price. For our purpose, the relevant part of the proviso would be "in the case of ... vehicle ... the owner of such ... vehicle ... shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such ... vehicle". Question is whether fine should not exceed the market price of the seized essential commodity or whether it should not exceed the market price of the vehicle. For this purpose, it appears that there is some ambiguity in the section. It is not specifically provided that in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle a fine not exceeding the market price of the vehicle or of the seized essential commodity is to be taken as a measure. Still however, it is difficult to say that the measure of fine is related to the market price of the essential commodity at the date of its seizure. Still however, it is difficult to say that the measure of fine is related to the market price of the essential commodity at the date of its seizure. It nowhere provides that fine should not exceed the market price of the essential commodity at the date of seizure of the vehicle. The proviso requires the competent authority to give an option to the owner of such vehicle to pay in lieu of confiscation a fine not exceeding the market price. What is to be confiscated is the vehicle and, therefore, the measure of fine would be relatable to the market price of the vehicle at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such vehicle" 10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the learned District Collector as well as learned Sessions Judge have rightly considered the material on record and passed the impugned Judgments and there are no illegalities or irregularities in the said Judgments, for which no interference of this Court is needed and prayed to dismiss these Criminal Revision Cases. 11. On a careful scrutiny of the material placed on record, it is to be noted that the rice was seized by the respondent No.3-Deputy Tahsildar(CS) suspecting the same as ‘PDS rice’ vide panchanama dated 17.10.2017 and a complaint under Section 6A of the Act was lodged for contravention of Clause 17(e) of the TSPDS Control Order, 2016 read with Section 5 of the Act. 12. In this context, it is relevant to extract Section 6A of the Act, which reads as under: “6A. 12. In this context, it is relevant to extract Section 6A of the Act, which reads as under: “6A. Confiscation of essential commodity.— (1)Where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto, a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made to the Collector of the district or the Presidency town in which such essential commodity is seized and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced for inspection before him, and if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order may order confiscation of—(a)the essential commodity so seized;(b)any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found; and(c)any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity: Provided that without prejudice to any action which may be taken under any other provision of this Act, no foodgrains or edible oilseeds in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto from a producer shall, if the seized foodgrains or edible oilseeds have been produced by him, be confiscated under this section: Provided further that in the case of any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for the carriage of goods or passengers for hire, the owner of such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance.(2)Where the Collector, on receiving a report of seizure or on inspection of any essential commodity under sub-section (1), is of the opinion that the essential commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest so to do, he may—(i)order the same to be sold at the controlled price, if any, fixed for essential commodity under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force; or(ii)where no such price is fixed, order the same to be sold by public auction: Provided that in case of foodgrains, the Collector may, for its equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, order the same to be sold through fair price shops at the price fixed by the Central Government or by the State Government, as the case may be, for the retail sale of such foodgrains to the public.(3)Where any essential commodity is sold, as aforesaid, the sale proceeds thereof, after deduction of the expenses of any such sale or auction or other incidental expenses relating thereto, shall—(a)where no order or confiscation is ultimately passed by the Collector,(b)where an order passed on appeal under sub-section (1) of section 6C so requires, or(c)where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under this section, the person concerned is acquitted, be paid to the owner or the person from whom it is seized.” 13. It is also relevant to extract Clause 17(e) of the TSPDS Control Order, 2016, which reads as under: “17(e) If any person is found to have purchased the rice supplied through PDS either from the card holder or the F.P. shop dealer or any other source, he shall be liable for criminal action and imposition of penalty as may be fixed by the Competent authority.” 14. It is an undisputed fact that the ‘rice’ falls under the scheduled commodity but not under essential commodity. It is to be noted that ‘rice’ is not shown in the schedule annexed to the Act. Moreover, there is no mention as to from whom the said rice was purchased by the petitioner-owner of the mill. Furthermore, except stating that the complainant acted upon credible information, there is no mention of details of informant or relevant source of information. However, to prove that the said rice is ‘PDS rice’, the details or particulars of any card holder, fair price shop dealer, or any other source, from where the petitioner-owner of the mill secured the said rice, are not mentioned in the order of the learned District Collector. 15. Here, it is pertinent to note that there is no proper discussion or cogent reasons assigned by the learned District Collector as to how he came to a conclusion that the seized rice is ‘PDS rice’. It is relevant to mention here that except the rice meant for public distribution, there is no prohibition with regard to purchase, sale or storage and transportation of rice and paddy. So also, there is no material to show that there is nexus between the owner of the mill and owner-cum-driver of the vehicle. In the absence of concrete evidence or material to show that the seized rice is PDS rice and its illegal transportation, the same cannot be confiscated. Therefore, the Confiscation and Penalty Order dated 04.01.2018 in Case No. CS6/211/2017-1 passed by the learned District Collector, Nizamabad (FAC), is illegal in the eye of law. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the firm opinion that the learned District Collector as well as the learned appellate Court have failed to observe that there is no proper material to show that the seized rice is PDS rice. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the firm opinion that the learned District Collector as well as the learned appellate Court have failed to observe that there is no proper material to show that the seized rice is PDS rice. In that view of the matter, the findings recorded by the learned District Collector as well as the learned appellate Court are liable to be set aside. 17. Accordingly, these Criminal Revision Cases are allowed setting aside the impugned Common Judgment dated 28.09.2018 in Criminal Appeal Nos.6 and 21 of 2018, modifying the Confiscation and Penalty Order dated 04.01.2018 in Case No.CS6/211/2017-1 passed by the learned District Collector, Nizamabad (FAC). The entire value of the confiscated stocks shall be refunded to the petitioner-owner of the mill. The penalty amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to the petitioner-owner-cum-driver of the vehicle. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.