Chichhadi Satyanarayana, Khm Dist. vs Tahsildar, Chinthuru

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2288 Tel
Judgement Date : 19 June, 2024

Telangana High Court

Chichhadi Satyanarayana, Khm Dist. vs Tahsildar, Chinthuru on 19 June, 2024

                                   1



     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

       CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2643 OF 2014

O R D E R:

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 29.09.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.48 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, at Khammam (for short, "the appellate Court") in modifying the judgment dated 21.03.2012 in M.C.No.191 of 2011 on the file of the learned District Collector, Khammam (for short, "the trial Court").

2. Heard Mr.Ganesh, learned counsel representing Mr.H.V.R.R.Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Rama Kotaiah, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.11.2011, upon receipt of credible information that certain irregularities are being done by the management of M/s. Raja Fuel Station, Chatti Village of Chinthuru Mandal in sale of M.S. & HSD to the consumers, the Tahsildar, Chinthuru, along with the Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Bhadrachalam, M.R.I. and V.R.O. concerned, proceeded to the Fuel station, procured the mediators and conducted inspection of M/s. Raja Fuel Station, Chatti Village. It 2 is stated that, at the time of inspection, one person is attending the business transactions and on questioning him, he introduced himself as Chicchadi Satyanarayanamurthy/petitioner, who is the dealer of IOCL and owner of M/s.Raja Fuel Station and on demand, he produced the record.

4. The inspecting authorities verified the record as well as the densities recorded thereon. The authorities observed that firstly; there is no delivery of diesel from one running nozzle, secondly; the quantity of diesel is less than 10 ml against 5 litres Calibration jar, thirdly; air was coming from the tube of running nozzle and there is adulteration. On noticing the contraventions of High Speed Diesel and Motor spirit, the authorities, seized 13,576 litres of High Speed Diesel as well as 3,251 litres of Motor spirit, which are available in the underground tanks of M/s. Raja Filling Station, with other record under cover of panchanama.

5. The learned Tahsildar, Chinthuru submitted a report to the District Collector, with a request to pass interim orders for disposal of the said 13,576 litres of High Speed Diesel and 3,251 litres of Motor spirit, pending finalization of Section 6(A) proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, "the EC Act").

3

6. It is submitted that the learned District Collector and District Magistrate issued show cause notice to the petitioner, as contemplated under Section 6-B of the EC Act and the petitioner filed his counter. However, on considering the submissions made by the parties, the trial Court vide judgment dated 21.03.2012 in M.C.No.191 of 2011 ordered for 100% confiscation of the seized stock to the Government. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an Appeal.

7. The appellate Court vide impugned judgment, directed the learned District Collector and District Magistrate to return 50% of the seized stock or its value to the petitioner within 30 days from that day, while confirming the confiscation of the remaining 50% of the seized stock. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred the present Revision.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and passed the impugned judgment. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.

9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellate Court, upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record passed the impugned judgment and the interference of 4 this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Revision.

10. The trial Court, upon careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record observed that the dealer has failed to maintain the stipulated quantity of stock and that due to improper maintenance of nozzle, adulteration was caused, which clearly shows that the clandestine business was done by the dealer of Petroleum products. Thus, the trial Court found that petitioner had violated the provisions of Clause 3(6) of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of supply, distribution and prevention of malpractices) Order, 2005 read with Section 3 of the EC Act and rendered its judgment.

11. The appellate Court, upon re-appreciating the evidence available on record found that there will be shortage of delivery of 10 ml of diesel for every 5 litres, which indicates that the petitioner high handedly carried the sale of High Speed Diesel and thereby cheated the customers. The appellate Court further observed that the question of mixing of water with High Speed Diesel does not amount to 'adulteration' as stated by the trial Court. Hence, the appellate Court modified the judgment passed by the trial Court and rendered the impugned judgment. 5

12. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel, keeping in view the mental agony and sufferance undergone by the petitioner right from the inspection of the petitioner's fuel station and initiation of proceedings before the trial Court, thereafter, on preferring the Criminal Appeal, before the first appellate Court and this being the petitioner's first violation of the provisions of Clause 3(6) of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of supply, distribution and prevention of malpractices) Order, 2005 read with Section 3 of the EC Act, this Court is of the opinion that a lenient view may be taken insofar as the confiscation order is concerned.

13. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed by modifying the judgment dated 29.09.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.48 of 2012 and the learned District Collector and District Magistrate is directed to return 60% of the seized stock or its value to the petitioner herein forthwith and the extent of confiscation of 50% of the seized stock is hereby reduced to 40%.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 19.06.2024 ESP