Confiscation of essential commodities requires concrete evidence of illegal activity; without such evidence, penalties and confiscation orders are unlawful.

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 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 purc