2017 Supreme(AP) 51

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.
Miriyala Renuka Devi and others - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad and others - Respondents
Criminal Revision Case Nos. 182, 236 and 237 of 2017
Decided On : 20-02-2017

Headnote:

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 6A and 3 - Heard both sides and perused the respective impugned orders of the District Collector vis-a-vis the lower appellate Court and the respective grounds of revisions and the respective contentions raised with provisions and propositions of law in relation thereto - Whether the confiscation proceedings of the learned Collector confirmed or to some extent modified as the case may be, by the respective Sessions Judges while sitting in appeal are unsustainable and there are no grounds for initiation of proceedings for confiscation and the very seizure itself is not sustainable and there is no violation of any Statutory provisions or Control Orders and the same are in ignorance of the said provisions or settled propositions - Vehicle was handed over to the SHO Police Station for safe custody and to confiscate the entire seized stock to the Government also pointed out that the respondents were illicitly transporting PDS Rice without any documents; that respondent No. 1 was in the habit of purchasing rice meant for PDS illicitly and doing business in rice (food grains) without valid permission from the authorities concerned with the active connivance of other respondents. Thus, the respondents interrupted the process of smooth functioning of Public Distribution System in contravention of Clause of the Public Distribution System and in contravention of Clause of the Scheduled Commodities without licence and transporting the same without bills illegally that resulted in the seizure of the stock - Collector and interim orders were passed directing to dispose of the seized stock by conducting public auction and submit sales list for confirmation respondent filed by order dated has obtained stay orders on sale of the seized stock pending finalization of the case and the vehicle was released to respondent on furnishing bank guarantee - confiscation of the seized stock and the respondents attended the hearings through Advocate and filed explanation stating that respondent is doing business in rice with valid licence and he is real owner of the seized stock and respondent is his son and respondent is his daughter in law, respondent is the driver of the vehicle of respondent and respondent is only looking after the affairs of his rice mill in his absence and the allegations of illicitly transporting the PDS Rice by procuring - Respondents District Collector vide order dated observed that said contentions of the respondents are neither correct nor acceptable, as according to Clause of the A.P Procurement Order every miller/dealer has to transport the rice for sale along with a release certificate issued by the Collector (Civil Supplies) or District Supply Officer and one of the respondents have been transporting quintals of the food grain without any valid bill and without even release certificate issued by the Competent Authority - Held, Punishment prescribed thereunder and to contradict the penal Sections it must be shown any contravention of any order made under the Act and the Control Order made by the State in exercise of its power under Section read with Section of the Act if it is shown that the carries on any of the activities in contravention of the Control Order then it attracts the penal sections and clause of the Control Order envisages penalty for confiscation of the stock making false entry and diverting stocks and that supplies and to the fair price shop dealers and enumerated dealers and hawkers and not for others thereby has no application and even coming to clause of the Control Order shows that the same is attracted to the fair price shop dealer or card holder of any person interferes with smooth distribution of essential commodities under the PDS or other Government scheme at any level till schedule commodity reaches the intended beneficiary and from its reading there is no whisper either in the detention order or in the grounds of detention that any of the detenues is interfering with the smooth functioning of the public commodities from the FCI till it reaches the intended beneficiary and the whole allegation is that they have been purchasing the PDS rice from card holders and it is outside the purview of Section 17A that applies the rice reaches the card holders and not later - Decision on its reading has no application to the facts - It is because it is not even the contention of any of the revision petitioners that after the PDS Rice reached the beneficiary and they purchased the same from the very beneficiaries, by invoking the express provisions so far as clause 17A of the Order - Some of the facts reveal that even FCI sealed bags were there among seized boxes, which clearly show diverting the stocks meant for beneficiaries before distribution to the beneficiaries as part of the PDS. Apart from it, it is important to note that it is not only in violation of the Control Order, but also in violation of the and further violation of clause for transporting rice from one District to another there under - There is no permit obtained either from the District Supply Officer or District Collector - Once these are the violations which clearly prone to seizure and initiation of the proceedings and prone to confiscation the respective orders of the Collectors as confirmed to that extent by the lower appellate authority, no way require interference, but for if at all to consider any interference, on the quantum, of confiscation of seized stock respectively - Crl.R.C No. 182 of 2017 is allowed - Crl.R.C No. 236 of 2017 is dismissed - Crl.R.C No. 237 of 2017 is allowed - Ordered Accordingly.