Telangana High Court
Manne Sudarshan vs The State Of Telangana on 8 July, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SRI A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRL.R.C.No.1077 OF 2019
ORDER:
This criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order, dated 13.07.2017, passed in Crl.A.No.71 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Medak, confirming the order, dated 15.05.2017, of the Collector, Medak, wherein confiscation of the entire seized stock was ordered.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Perused the records.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner is the proprietor of M/s.Bhargava Industries Rice Mill, Narsingi Village, Papannapet Mandal, Medak District. The District Manager, TSCSCL, Medak submitted a report stating that the revision petitioner did not deliver the CMR, Rice given for custom milling during KMS 2012-13 to 2015-16 and also the miller indulged in illegal activities by storing PDS rice unauthorizedly and on its recycling he delivered the same as CMR. On receipt of the report, as per the instructions of Collector, (CS) Medak, on 2 22.02.2016, the Tahsildar and the District Supply Officer along with staff inspected M/s.Bhargava Industries and on verification of the report of the District Manager, TSCSC Limited, Medak at Sangareddy and 'B' Register of the said Industry, they found that the stocks were recorded as on 01.02.2016 and no entries were found in respect of (i) 14650 quintals of paddy (ii) 164.60 quintals of rice and (iii) 275.45 quintals of broken rice. On physical verification, they noticed one huge heap of rice and two small heaps of rice available in the Mills. Suspecting to be PDS rice, they collected samples from two small heaps of rice, as per procedure. They found that miller stored the stock of rice and paddy in an unaccountable manner. It is further alleged that on weighing the unaccounted stock, they found that it is (i) 9339.17 quintals of paddy in 23,360 bags, (ii) 1183 quintals of raw rice in 2350 bags, (iii) 294.81 quintals of boiled rice in 600 bags, (iv) 182.39 quintals of damaged boiled rice in 400 bags, (v) 50 quintals of broken rice in 100 bags and (vi) 18 quintals of suspected PDS rice in 36 bags. It is alleged that there is huge variation between the stock entered in the B-Register and the stock physically 3 available in the mill premises. It was alleged that the revision petitioner had not maintained true and correct accounts of the stock and indulged in clandestine business in storing PDS rice and failed to deliver CMR rice within the stipulated time and diverted CMR paddy by not maintaining proper records and that thereby contravened the conditions 9(1) and (2) of A.P.Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984, conditions 4 to 7 and 9 of the Telangana Rice (Custom Milling Order), 2015 read with G.O.Ms.No.18 CA F&CS (CS-I:CCS-I) Department, dated 30.10.2015 and clause 17(A) of the A.P. PDS Control Order, 2008. Therefore the, entire stock was seized under the cover of panchanama and filed report before the District Collector, Medak under Section 6-A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The District Collector took the case on file as E.C. Act case No.CSA/134/2016, dated 15.05.2017 and issued a show cause notice as required under Section 6(B) of the Essential Commodities Act. The revision petitioner filed written statement denying the allegations. After due enquiry, the District Collector concluded that the revision petitioner was conducting business by not maintaining true and correct accounts with regard 4 to the CMR as well as the B-Register and thereby violated A.P.Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984, AP PDS Control Order, 2008 and the Telangana Rice (Custom Milling) Order, 2015 and ordered confiscation of the seized stocks. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in Crl.A.No.71 of 2017. By the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge framed the following points for consideration:
1. Whether the appellant contravened (i) conditions 9 (1) and (2) of A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984,
(ii) conditions 4 to 7 and 9 of the Telangana Rice (Custom Milling Order), 2015 read with G.O.Ms.No.18 CA F&CS (CS-I:CCS-I) Department, dated 30.10.2015 and clause 17(A) of the A.P. PDS Control Order, 2008 and whether impugned orders passed by the learned District Collector, Medak suffers from any irregularity, infirmity or illegality, warranting to be set aside?
4. On point, the learned Principal Sessions Judge held that the revision petitioner could not furnish any material showing that there was no excess stock in the premises of their mill and opined that the District Collector has rightly concluded that there was huge 5 unaccounted stock found in the mills of the revision petitioner and that thereby the revision petitioner indulged in clandestine business and contravened the above provisions. It is further held that the order of the District Collector does not suffer from any irregularity, infirmity or illegality and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of confiscation is not sustainable, as the District Collector and the learned Judge failed to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner and the same were not considered. As such, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
6. A perusal of the record reveals that the inspection took place on 22.02.2016 by the Tahsildar and the District Supply Officer and during the course of inspection of the rice mill of the petitioner, the authorities found stock in excess and it was unaccounted.
7. Regarding the first variation that the revision petitioner during KMS 2012 to 2015 was supposed to hold 9095.53 quintals of paddy at the time of inspection, for which the miller had to deliver CMR rice as per Levy Order, 1984 within 15 days after 6 receipt of paddy for each season, but the petitioner failed to do so and on verification there was no stock. The revision petitioner submitted that they have given advance rice to the Corporation in KMS 2007-2008 Kharif season as per the oral instructions of the Joint Collector and if the advance rice given in the KMS 2007- 2008 is accounted, then there would be no variation.
8. Regarding the second variation they found deficit of paddy 700.95 quintals as shortage. The revision petitioner pleaded that calculations were made as per the acknowledgment of supplied rice for the year 2015-16 Khariff and if it is recalculated, there would be no shortage of stock. The Inspecting Officers verified the accounts and arrived that there is deficit of paddy as stated above.
9. Regarding availability of 1800 quintals of PDS rice at the mill premises during inspection, the revision petitioner pleaded that there was no PDS rice available in the mill premises. But during inspection, the authorities found 18.00 quintals of rice was kept in the rare end of the mill and samples of rice were sent for analysis and as per the report, seized 18 quintals of rice is suspected to be PDS rice.
7
10. It appears form the orders of the Collector, after thorough enquiry and after giving sufficient opportunity to the revision petitioner, after hearing and after verifying the entire documents came to the conclusion that revision petitioner failed to account for the lapses as pointed out during inspection. As such, the allegation that non-delivery of 9095.53 quintals of CMR paddy for the KMS 2012 to 2015 and shortfall of 700.95 quintals of CMR paddy for the KMS 2015-2016 Kharif was established. After accounting the seized stock of paddy and rice to the account of the CMR, the left over seized commodities are ordered for confiscation.
11. Therefore, the material on record discloses that the variation/lapses noticed during inspection and the deficiency of CMR paddy and holding of suspected PDS rice and the stock position recorded in the CMR register and PD register, there is no relevancy with the stock found at the time of Inspection, which indicate the clandestine nature of business. The revision petitioner, therefore, failed to establish that there is illegality or irregularity in the proceedings followed by them during inspection and the material on record established that the petitioner found guilty and 8 the impugned order of confiscation did not suffer from infirmity. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Sessions Judge, on due appreciation of various contentions raised by the petitioner has rightly dismissed the appeal confirming the orders of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Medak District.
12. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned order, which was passed on proper appreciation of the material on record, did not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity, so as to warrant interference by this Court. Therefore, the findings of the learned Sessions Judge and the confiscation of the entire seized are confirmed.
13. In view of the above, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 08.07.2022 Nvl 9