Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Maram Venkateswara Reddy, Darsi Vm, ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., ... on 10 July, 2025
1
APHC010639722010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 569/2010
Between:
1. MARAM VENKATESWARA REDDY, DARSI [V&M], PRAKASAM,&7
OTRS., S/O. RAMI REDDY R/O. DARSI VILLAGE & MANDAL,
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
2. PEREAM VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/O. MUSALA REDDY R/O.
DARSI VILLAGE & MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
3. YERUVA VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/O. PULLA REDDY R/O. DARSI
VILLAGE & MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
4. DEVANDLA KONDAIAH, S/O. NAGAIAH R/O. DARSI VILLAGE &
MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
5. YERUVA NAGESWARA REDDY, S/O. PULLA REDDY R/O. DARSI
VILLAGE & MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
6. MUTHINENI CHINA YOGAIAH, S/O. PEDDA KOTAIAH R/O. DARSI
VILLAGE & MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
7. ASAPALA CHINNA NAFESWARA RAO, S/O. RAMAIAH R/O. DARSI
VILLAGE & MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
8. MARA RAMI REDDY, S/O. VENKATA REDDY R/O. DARSI VILLAGE &
MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY P P HYDERABAD, Rep. by its Public
2
Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toaggrieved by the
order in Crl.A. No. 135 / 2009,. dt. 13-11-2009 on the file of the Sessions ::
Prakasam Division : Ongole Partly confirming the orders of the Collector (CS)
Ongole, Prakasam District in the proceedings RC.CS1/6A/63/2009, dt. 31-08-
2009 in so far it went against the petitioners filed this Memorandum of
Criminal Revision Case.
IA NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 483 OF 2010
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
condone the delay of 8 days in re-presenting the Crl.R.C. in the interest of
justice.
IA NO: 2 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 559 OF 2010
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
dispense with the filing of certified copy of the Orders of the Collector in the
proceedings in Rc.CS1/6A/63/2009, dated 31.08.09 for the time being,
pending disposal of the case in the interest of justice.
IA NO: 3 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 863 OF 2010
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
release the balance 30% of the seized rice to the petitioners by suspending
orders in Crl.A. No. 135 / 2009, dt. 13-11-2009 on the file of Sessions Court,
Prakasam Division, Ongole, partly confirming the orders of the Collector in the
proceeidngs in Rc. CS1/6A/63/2009, dt. 31-08-2009, pending disposal of the
case in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. P NAGENDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
3
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the Judgment, dated 13.11.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ongole in Crl.A.No.135 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal while confirming the order passed by the learned Joint Collector, Civil Supplies,Ongole reducing the percentage of the confiscation to 30% from 60%.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
3. Mr K.Sazid, learned counsel representing Mr P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of revision, submits that the confiscation of 30% of the seized stock is on the higher side; even though the seized stock was belonging to the petitioners and it is not a PDS rice, the impugned order was passed on erroneous reasons. The learned Appellate Court had not appreciated the said fact and ordered reduction of the confiscation percentage without setting aside the order of the learned Joint Collector, Civil Supplies,Ongole. Hence, the learned counsel urged to allow the Criminal Revision Case.
4. On the other hand, Ms.P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the trial Court rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and confirmed the order passed by the learned 4 Joint Collector, Civil Supplies,Ongole while liberally reducing the quantum of confiscation and urged to dismiss the Revision as there were no merits.
5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.
6. Now the point for consideration is:
"Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.135 of 2009, dated 13.11.2009, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ongole is valid and sustainable in the eye of law?
7. For better appreciation and understanding of the case, it is apposite to extract Section 6-A of 'the E.C Act.,' as under:
"6-A. 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 food grains or edible oilseeds in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto from a producer shall, if the seized food grains or edible oilseeds have been produced by him, be confiscated under this section:5
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. 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 such 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 food grains, 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 food grains 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"
8. A fair reading of Section 6-A of 'the E.C Act.,' it can be understood that upon of the receipt the information/report about the seizer of any Essential Commodity, it is incumbent on the part of the learned District Collector to direct the Essential Commodity be produced for inspection before 6 him and if it is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the orders, he may order for confiscation of the commodities seized subject to the procedure contemplated under Section 6-B of 'the E.C Act'.
9. For better understanding of the case Section 6-B of 'the E.C Act.,' is reproduced as follows:
"6-B. (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; and
(c)is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. (2)Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), no order confiscating any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be made under section 6A if the owner of the animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance proves to the satisfaction of the Collector that it was used in carrying the essential commodity without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in charge of the animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. (3)No order confiscating any essential commodity package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be invalid merely by reason of any defect or irregularity in the notice, given under clause (a) of sub-section (l), if, in giving such notice, the provisions of that clause have been substantially complied with."7
10. A careful reading of Section 6-B of 'the E.C Act.,' it is crystal clear that before passing any order for confiscation of the Essential Commodity, it is mandatory on the part of the learned District Collector to issue a show cause notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the essential commodity under Clause (a) of Section 6B of 'the E.C Act;' a reasonable opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation shall be given under Clause (b); a reasonable opportunity of being heard within such reasonable time shall be given under Clause (c) of the notice as contemplated under Section 6-A of 'the E.C Act'. As seen from the impugned order, there are no references about issuance of notices as contemplated under Section 6-B 'the E.C Act.,' containing the above mentioned requirements. The impugned order is not reflecting that the learned District Collector had conducted an enquiry as contemplated under Section 6-B of 'the E.C Act'. The impugned order does not contain the charges under which the petitioners/ryots had allegedly violated the control orders.
11. In this regard, it is opposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagmohan Singh v. State of Panjab 1 wherein it is categorically held at para No.13 that an order passed without issuing a show cause notice is revisable and to be interfered and set aside. Notice under Section 6-B(1) of 'the E.C Act.,' must contain all details and the grounds of 1 2008 (7) SCC 38 8 proposed confiscation proceedings. Further, the High Court of Patna in Mahabir Prasad Bajaj v. State of Bihar 2 held that vague notice vitiates entire proceedings and the provisions of Section 6-B(1) of 'the E.C Act.,' are mandatory. This judgment gives emphasis on the point that the notice must contain all material facts or allegations.
12. In Jhabarmal Mukin v. State of Bihar3, a Division Bench of the High Court of Patna held that the confiscation was invalid because the requirements of section 6-B of 'the E.C. Act.,' was not mentioned in the notice. It was held that on plain reading, sub-section (3) is applicable to cases where there has been a substantial compliance. This shows that substantial compliance of the notice under section 6B of 'the E.C Act.,' is a must. The question of defect or irregularity will come subsequently. When the notice itself has not been substantially complied with as required under section 6B (a) of 'the E.C Act.,' there is no question that any defect or irregularity can be ignored under sub-section (3) of section 6B of 'the E.C Act'.
13. In Md. Ayub Bismillah Rice and Oil Mills v. Collector West Champaran4, it is held that if a notice is issued without giving any details of violation of the Licensing Order, such type of notice shall not fulfill the requirements of section 6B of 'the E.C Act'. It was pointed out that the notice issued must set out in detail, the grounds on which it was proposed to confiscate the essential commodities.
2 1990 SCC OnLine Pat 174 3 1984, P.L.J.R. 568 4 1977 B.B.C.J. 151 9
14. Indeed, as seen from the impugned order passed by the learned Joint Collector, Civil Supplies, Ongole, dated 31.08.2009, it does not refer about the framing of a charge and it is mentioned that the petitioner has violated the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. It is needless to mention that before passing any order much less a quasi judicial order, the learned Joint Collector, Civil Supplies, Ongole ought to have framed a charge clearly indicating about the violation of particular provision of the control order by the petitioners. In the absence of doing so, passing of an order confiscating the seized stock to a particular extent is violative of principles of natural justice. Further, the impugned order also does not reflect about 6B notice which has to be issued under 'the Act' that the petitioners had violated a particular clause of the Control Orders.
15. In view of the above reasons, the Criminal Revision Case deserves to be allowed and the impugned Judgment, dated 13.11.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ongole in Crl.A.No.135 of 2009 is liable to be set aside.
16. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment, dated 13.11.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ongole in Crl.A.No.135 of 2009 is set aside. Consequently, the proceedings in Rc.CS1/6A/63/2009, dated 31.08.2009 passed by the Joint Collector, Civil Supplies, Ongole are also set aside.
17. With the above directions, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
10
As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 10.07.2025 TM 11 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 569/2010 Date:10.07.2025 TM