K. Sulochana Rani, vs Joint Collector Addl. Dist. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5048 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

        CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.327 of 2006

ORDER:

No representation from the side of the petitioners. Heard Sri

S.Dushyanth Reddy, learned Spl.Addl.Public Prosecutor, appearing for

respondents and perused the material on record.

2. This revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order,

dated 04.12.2005 on the file of the court of the Sessions Judge, Guntur in

Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2002, dismissing the petitioners' appeal filed

against the judgment and order, dated 10.01.2002 on the file of the Joint

Collector, Guntur in EC Act Case No.110/2001-S7, the Mandal Revenue

Officer, Tadepalli vs K.Sulochana Rani and others, by which the charges

against the petitioners were proved beyond any doubt and the entire

stock of 12000 liters of Kerosene oil along with Oil Tanker bearing

No.AEW-465 was confiscated.

3. The facts of the case are that a complaint was made by the

Mandal Revenue Officer, Tadepalli to the effect that the petitioners were

found indulging in diversion of PDS Kerosene meant for card-holders to

black-market and transporting of Kerosene oil was made without invoice

of the Oil Company and without maintaining trip sheet. The complainant

also seized the entire quantity of 12000 liters of blue dyed kerosene along

with oil tanker and handed over the same to wholesale dealer, Guntur

under proper acknowledgment and submitted a report in the court under

Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short "E.C.Act") and

requested to pass interim orders for disposal of the seized stocks and also

proposed to confiscate the same to the Government under Section 6-A(1)

of E.C.Act. Basing on the report of the complainant, the trial court passed 2 RNT,J Crl.RC.327 of 2006

interim orders on 29.11.2001 for disposal of the seized stocks and also

issued a notice on 04.12.2001 to the respondents under Section 6-B of

E.C.Act, calling for objections on proposal of seized stocks for confiscation

to the Government and also to file written explanation on the charges

framed.

4. The following charges were framed:

Charge No.1 That the 1st respondent with the collusion of 2nd to 4th respondents indulging in diversion of PDS Kerosene meant for card-holders through Oil Tanker bearing No.AEW-465 containing 12 KLS without Invoice of Company showing the Depot from which the product has been issued and the destination. Thus violated Cl.26(i) of APP (L&Rs) Order 1980

Charge No.2 That the 1st Respondent is license holder being a wholesale kerosene dealer involving in transactions of purchase and sale of petroleum products in a speculative manner and diverted the K.Oil stocks of 12 KL meant for PDS through Oil Tanker bearing No.AEW-465. Thus violated cond.6(i)(iv) of License issued under Clause 4 (2) of APPP (L&Rs) Order, 1980.

Charge No.3 That the 3rd Respondent transporting petroleum product in a tanker bearing No.AEW-465 containing 12 KL of blue dyed K.Oil without invoice of Oil Company and also not written trip sheet. Thus violated Cl.26(i) of APPP (L&Rs) Order, 1980

5. The request of the respondents before the trial court for

releasing of the seized stocks and oil tanker on furnishing of bank

guarantee for the value of seized stocks was rejected on 04.12.2001.

6. The Joint Collector, Guntur, on consideration of the material

available on record and also the submissions of the counsels of

respondents Nos.1 and 2 before the said court, respondents Nos.3 and 4

before the said court being absent, recorded that charges levelled against

the respondents were proved beyond any doubt. There was violation of

Clause 26 (1) of A.P.Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of

Supplies) Order, 1980 (for short "APPP (L&Rs) Order, 1980"), as the 3 RNT,J Crl.RC.327 of 2006

invoice issued by IOC authorities for 12000 liters of kerosene oil stocks

was not produced nor the trip sheet was produced at the time of seizure.

By the said order, the entire stock of 12000 liters of kerosene oil with oil

tanker was confiscated to the Government, giving an option to the 2nd

respondent to pay in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle a fine not

exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential

commodity.

7. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 before the trial court, filed Criminal

Appeal No.40 of 2002 in the court of Sessions Judge, Guntur. The

appellate court framed the following points for consideration:

1) Whether the court below was justified in holding that the appellants 1 and 2 were guilty of the charges leveled against them?

2) Whether the punishment imposed against the appellants was appropriate?

8. On both the points, the appellate court held that the finding of

the trial court on all three charges was justified which did not call for any

interference, as according to the appellate court also it was clear that the

destination of the kerosene was not for the nominated retailers, fair price

shop dealers in Krishna District but somewhere else. There was violation

of Clause 26(1) of APPP (L&Rs) Order, 1980. The appellate court further

held that the punishment imposed against the appellants therein by the

trial court was appropriate and justified, considering the gravity of the

offence committed.

9. The Courts below have concurrently held that there was violation

of Clause 26(1) of APPP (L&Rs) Order, 1980. The destination of the

kerosene was not for the nominated retailers, fair price shop dealers in

Krishna District, but somewhere else. The invoice issued by the IOC 4 RNT,J Crl.RC.327 of 2006

authorities was not produced nor the trip sheet at the time of seizure. All

the charges were proved beyond doubt.

10. These findings of fact do not suffer from any error of law, or

any illegality or impropriety or arbitrary exercise of power.

11. The scope of interference by the High Court in exercise of

powers of revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. is very limited and

cannot be exercised in a routine manner.

12. In Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another1 the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Section 397 of the Code vests the

court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior

court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity

of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision

is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. The

revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge

are grossly erroneous, if there is no compliance with the provisions of law,

if the finding recorded is based on no evidence, or material evidence is

ignored, or juridical discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.

13. Similarly, in the case of Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar2 the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is well sellted that in exercise of

revisional jurisdiction, the High Court does not, in the absence of

perversity, upset concurrent factual findings. It is not for the revisional

court to re-analyze and re-interpret the evidence on record.

14. In view of the aforesaid, the judgments under challenge call for

no interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this court.

Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.

    (2012) 9 SCC 460

    (2019) 4 SCC 197
                                  5                                RNT,J
                                                      Crl.RC.327 of 2006

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in

consequence.

_______________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J Date: 08.12.2021 Dsr