##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.738 of 2023

DATE: 06.04.2026

BETWEEN:

Yerram Srinivas

…..petitioner

And

The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,

High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad and others

…..Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the

order dated 18.08.2026 passed in Crl.A.No.57 of 2022 by the

learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy.

2 SKS,J Crl.R.C.No.738 of 2023

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/appellant challenged the order dated 07.11.2022 passed by the Collector (Civil Supplies), Kamareddy in E.C. Act Case No.CS6/61/2022, wherein the Collector ordered confiscation of seized PDS rice. According to the petitioner, on 30.06.2022 the police officials, acting on information regarding illegal transportation of PDS rice, intercepted a lorry bearing No. AP-25-V-2964 near Datta Rice Mills, Kamareddy, and seized rice bags loaded in the vehicle. The petitioner contended that the seized rice was not regular PDS rice but auctioned rice unfit for human consumption, which he had legally purchased in a government auction for the purpose of using it as poultry feed, and that only about 140.20 quintals remained stored in the godown. He further contended that the authorities mistakenly treated the stock as illegally transported PDS rice and initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, resulting in the confiscation order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred the present criminal revision/appeal seeking to set aside the confiscation order passed by the Collector (Civil

Supplies), Kamareddy.

3 SKS,J Crl.R.C.No.738 of 2023

3. Heard Sri Babuji Tenneti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

the respondent No.1 - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order under revision confirming the order of the Collector (Civil Supplies), Kamareddy are illegal, improper and contrary to law and the evidence on record and that the courts below failed to appreciate that the petitioner had legally purchased the PDS rice through a government open auction and had also produced relevant documents, including the authorization letter and purchase receipts, to establish his lawful possession. However, the authorities, under a misconception, treated the said rice as normal PDS rice meant for public distribution and seized the same, though the rice was unfit for human consumption and intended for poultry feed. He contended that the courts below proceeded on presumptions and assumptions without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and wrongly confirmed the confiscation order, resulting in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, he prayed

4 SKS,J Crl.R.C.No.738 of 2023

that the impugned judgment and the consequential order

passed in the E.C. Act case be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the order passed by the Collector (Civil Supplies), Kamareddy and the judgment of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.27 of 2022 are legal, valid and passed after due consideration of the material available on record. He contended that the authorities had conducted proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, providing him an opportunity to explain the circumstances under which the PDS rice was being transported and stored. However, the petitioner failed to satisfactorily establish that the transportation and possession of the seized rice were lawful. He further submitted that both the authorities below rightly appreciated the facts and evidence and concluded that the petitioner was involved in illegal transportation of PDS rice in contravention of the p