(Prayer: Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order (to the extent of it went against the petitioners) passed in EC.Appeal No. 24 of 2012 dated 24-10-2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Krishna Division, Machilipatnam, Krishna District filed against the order of the Joint Collector, in E.C.P.No. 820 of 2010 dated 30-12-2011.

IA NO: 1 OF 2015(CRLRCMP 25 OF 2015

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

IA NO: 2 OF 2015(CRLRCMP 102 OF 2015

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 direct the learned Joint Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam to continue the sale proceeds of seized stock in temporary deposit, pending the disposal of the Crl.RC.)

1. Assailing the order dated 24.10.2014 in E.C.Appeal No.24 of 2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Session Judge, Vijayawada confirming the seizure and confiscation of 132 bags consisting of 98.80 quintals of rice by the District Collector, Krishna, the revision petitioners filed this revision case.

2. The parties are being referred to as complainant and respondents as arrayed in the order of Collector, Civil Supplies, for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. Case of the complainant is, the respondents were indulged in clandestine business of purchasing PDS rice which is meant for public distribution and selling the same at higher rates, in black market. On 06.11.2010, while the respondents were transporting 98.80 quintals of PDS rice in 132 bags in lorry bearing number AP16U 7648, the inspection team seized the said stock and the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam has issued show cause notice under Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). During the course of inspection, respondent No.1 confessed that he has been collecting PDS rice from various fair shop dealers in and around Mailavaram and Ibrahimpatnam Mandals at Rs.9/- per kg and selling the same to fish tank owners at Kaikaluru at Rs.10/- for his pecuniary gains and as such, respondents have contravened Clauses 17(a) and 17(b) of A.P. State PDS Control Order, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Control Order’). Finally, the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam filed 6A case before the Joint Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. During enquiry, Joint Collector, Krishna District had called for explanation of the respondents and having received explanation and having conducted enquiry, the Joint Collector, Krishna has come to conclusion that the respondents violated the provisions of the Control Order, 2008 with an intention to divert the essential commodities to black market for his pecuniary gains and ordered to confiscate entire seized stock to the government. Further, Joint Collector also imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the owner of lorry bearing number AP16U7648 under the provisions of the Act for illegal transportation of rice in his vehicle.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the confiscation order, respondents preferred E.C Appeal in No.24/2012. While allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Joint Collector, Krishna at Machilipatnam, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge didn't pass any order in respect of the seizure of the stock and by assigning reason that seizure is justified and liberty is given to the authorities to initiate appropriate legal proceedings.

5. Grounds urged in this revision are, having allowed the appeal filed by the respondents on the ground that proceedings under Section 6A of the Act are not maintainable, the learned Judge ought to have released stock or costs of seized material as no proceedings are pending against seizure and as such, the impugned order to the extent of it went against the respondents is contrary to law and record.

6. Heard both sides. On hearing both sides and upon perusing the material placed on record including the impugned order dated 24.10.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Session Judge, Vijayawada, the point that would arises for consideration is:

                  Whether the judgment dated 24.10.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Session Judge, Vijayawada, is sustainable in facts and law or it suffers from any material irregularity?

7. As seen from the record, it is not in dispute that on 06.11.2010, while the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were transporting 98.80 quintals of rice in 132 bags in a lorry bearing number AP16U 7648, the inspection team including the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam inspected the said lorry and having found that the respondents indulged in clandestine business by purchasing PDS rice which is meant for public distribution to the card holders, seized the same. And, after issuing show cause notice to the respondents, the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam filed case under Section 6A of the Act before the Joint Collector, Krishna. Record further reveals that upon receipt of entire record, the Joint Collector, Krishna called for explanations under Section 6B of the Act. Pursuant to the notices issued to the respondents, they submitted explanations and having not satisfied with the same, the Joint Collector, Krishna, ordered for confiscation of entire rice stock of 98.80 quintals to the government and further, imposed penalty of rupees Rs.10,000/- for release of the lorry bearing No.AP16U 7648.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners initially would argue that there is no proof to show that it is PDS rice and without there being any material, the Joint Collector came to wrong conclusion that 98.80 quintals is PDS rice and respondents violated the provisions of Control Order, 2008. Further, having allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents, the learned Judge came to wrong conclusion in respect of the principle laid down in Sri Sai Traders represented by its proprietor and others vs. Assistant Supply Officer (2006 4 ALT 758) and having giving liberty to initiation of criminal proceedings, failed to order for release of the seized stock.

9. In the aforementioned case, since the seizure is justified and the civil supply authorities have proved that it is public distributed system rice, the Hon'ble High Court held that the seizure may not be restored. But, in the present case at hand, it is not the version of the complainant that the inspection team drew samples of rice as required under Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 and forwarded samples to the District Manager, APSCSCL or any other laboratory so as to get examined the suspected samples that whether they represents PDS rice or not. The complainant utterly failed to prove that the seized stock is public distribution system rice. In the absence of any material to show that the seized stock is public distribution system rice, it cannot be said that the seizure is justified.

10. As per the reasons assigned by the learned appellate Court, the civil supply authorities have no power to initiate any action under the Act. In the judgment relied upon by the learned appellate Court in Sri Sai Traders (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held, as per clause 6 of the Control Order dated 15.02.2002, the State Government may have control over the rice required for public distribution system as contemplated under Control Order 2001 and nothing more than that and further, by the order dated 15.02.2002, in fact, the rice has been taken out of the Control Order as an essential commodity and as such, in the entire Control Order 2001, there is no contingency visualized of this nature and that the only option left to the civil supply authorities is to take criminal action against the violators who indulged in purchase of rice like food for work or public distribution system rice and finally held that, as per clause 16 of the Control Order 2001, rice is only a scheduled commodity, but not an essential commodity to invoke the provisions of the Act and therefore, the impugned action of the respondents in invoking the provisions of Section 6A of the Act and seizing the rice of the petitioners is without any authority of law and is arbitrary and illegal.

11. So, the only option left to the Complainant is to initiate criminal proceedings against the respondents and pursuant to the observation made by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, complainant initiated criminal proceedings in C.C.No.221/2011 under Section 7 of the Act. But, at the culmination of trial, learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada acquitted the respondents vide judgment dated 22.12.2015 on the ground that the prosecution utterly failed to prove its case. Therefore, absolutely there is no basis for justification of seizure and confiscation of seized stock of 98.80 quintals of rice and without any doubt, it can be said that it belongs to the respondent No.1. With regard to the status of the seized stock, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted a letter dated 06.08.2018 addressed by the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam and it reveals that as per the interim order in this case, the sale proceeds are still kept in temporary deposit. The same shall be returned to the respondent No.1.

12. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed, and the judgment dated 24.10.2014 in E.C.Appeal No.24 of 2012 made by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada is be and hereby set aside and consequently, the Joint Collector, Krishna at Machilipatnam shall return the sale proceeds in respect of seized stock of 98.80 quintals of rice, which are in temporary custody, to the respondent No.1 under proper acknowledgment, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.