SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(AP) 619

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M.GANGA RAO, J.
D.S. Govinda Raju & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State Of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary Civil Supplies Department Secretariat & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 9969 of 2021
Decided on : 18-11-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Harish Kumar Rasineni

Point of Law : Provisions of Clause 20(a) of the Control Order, 2018 empower only the police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of the jurisdictional police station as competent to search and seize the stock on a reasonable suspicion that the stock being stored or transported are PDS rice. On such seizure, immediately he has to inform to the concerned officers to take appropriate action as per the provisions of the Control Order, 2018 and under the provisions of the Act.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 – Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 – Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 420 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 102 - Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 – Section 7(1) – Fraud- Seizer of rice bags - Petitioner is proprietor of firm and petitioner is owner of seized vehicle - Respondent - Head Constable of Kuderu Police Station, seized 260 bags of rice each weighing 50 Kgs of petitioner and vehicle of other petitioner under cover of Mediators report alleging that on receiving credible information, vehicle was stopped within jurisdiction of Police Station - On seeing them, driver of the vehicle tried to abscond from the scene – Then respondent with help of his staff, chased him and brought him to their custody - On enquiry, he revealed that his and one are his friends; said Teja used to purchase rice from him, convert it into polished rice and sell it in open market for higher rates - Whether rice seized are PDS rice or not based on evidence adduced.

Findings of the Court :

Government Pleader for Home also contended that as per the provisions of Section 102 Cr.P.C., any police office may seize any property which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of commission of any offence - But, such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer - Therefore, such power could not be taken away by the provisions of Control Order, 2018 - Learned counsel for the petitioner states that Code of Criminal Procedure is a general procedure Code, whereas Control Order, 2018 is passed exercising power under the provisions of Section 3 of Act, which is a special enactment and it overrides general provisions and the police officers below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police are not empowered to search and seize essential commodities - Hence, the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Home is unsustainable under law - Hence, seizure of stock and vehicle by respondent under Mahazarnama is declared as illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law and consequently same is set aside.

Result : Writ Petition is allowed.

ORDER :

In this writ petition, the petitioners sought a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent in seizing of 260 bags of rice each weighing 50 Kgs. belonging to the 1st petitioner and the Eicher transport vehicle bearing registration No.AP02 TA 7269 belonging to the 2nd petitioner under the cover of panchanama/mediator report dated 01.04.2021, as being illegal, arbitrary and without any authority of law or jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short ‘the Control Order, 2018’) besides violative of the provisions of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the same with a direction to the respondents not to take any action in pursuance of the illegal seizure.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

3. The facts of the case are that the 1st petitioner is the proprietor of the firm styled as ‘Shankar Trading Co.’ and the 2nd petitioner is the owner of the seized vehicle bearing Registration No.AP02 TA 7269. The 5th respondent - Head Constable of Kuderu Police Station, Ananthapuramu District seized 260 bags of rice each weighing 50 Kgs. of the 1st petitioner and the vehicle of the 2nd petitioner under the cover of Mediators report dated 01.04.2021 alleging that on receiving credible information, the vehicle was stopped on Ananthapuramu - Bellary road on 01.04.2021 at 02.45 a.m. within the jurisdiction of Kuderu Police Station. On seeing them, the driver of the vehicle tried to abscond from the scene. Then, the 5th respondent with the help of his staff, chased him and brought him to their custody. On enquiry, he revealed that his name was Dasari Naresh; one Subrahmanyam @ Setty of Alumuru and Teja are his friends; the said Teja used to purchase rice from him, convert it into polished rice and sell it in open market for higher rates; in this process, on 31.03.2021, he purchased rice from the villagers of Kuderu Mandal for lesser price; and while transporting the load to Ananthapuramu in the vehicle, they caught hold of them. Then, on search of vehicle, it is found that there are 260 bags of rice and the total weight of the bags is 10,285 Kgs. Immediately, they seized the rice along with vehicle. Based on the said mediators report, a crime was registered as F.I.R.No.54 of 2021 of Kuderu Police Station for the offences under Section 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and under Section 7(1) of the Act. The same was informed to the Tahsildar, Kuderu Mandal for necessary action in respect of seized rice as per law.

4. The 3rd respondent - Joint Collector, Ananthapuramu District and the 4th respondent - Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuderu Police Station filed their counters on similar lines stating that the 5th respondent seized 255 bags of rice (sic. 260 bags of rice) each containing approximately 50 Kgs. belonging to the 1st petitioner and the vehicle bearing Registration No.AP02 TA 7269 belonging to the 2nd petitioner under the cover of Mahazernama dated 01.04.2021 in FIR No. 54 of 2021 of Kuderu Police Station for the offences under Section 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and under Section 7(1) of the Act. The 5th respondent, on credible information, in the absence of the Sub-Inspector of Police who was on investigation duty in Crime No.163 of 2019 under ‘Man missing’ case and the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who was deputed to Bandobust duties to prevent sand transportation, proceeded to Ananthapuramu - Uravakonda (sic.) highway along with constables and mediators to search the vehicles and noticed the offending vehicle with a load of rice bags. When the driver of the vehicle tried to skulk away, they apprehended him, searched the vehicle and seized the stoc

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top