P.Raja Gopalaiah And 7 Others, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 1198 AP

    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

       CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.939 OF 2009

ORDER:-

      This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners,

who are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2006, on

the file of Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, challenging the

judgment,    dated   01.04.2009,   where    under    the    learned

Sessions    Judge,   Ananthapuramu,      dismissed    the    same

confirming the order passed by the learned Joint Collector-cum-

Additional District Magistrate, Ananthapuramu in Rc.No.K3/

4900/1999, dated 27.02.2006.

      2)    The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will

hereinafter be referred to as described before the Court below

for the sake of the convenience.

      3)    The proceedings in Rc.No.K3/4900/1999, dated

27.02.2006, on the file of Joint Collector-cum-Additional District

Magistrate, Ananthapuramu, arose out of the report submitted

by the Inspector of Police, VCCS F/S, Tirupati, under Section 6-

A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

      4)    The case of the complainant before the Court below

is that the Inspector of Police, VCCS F/S, Tirupati, along with

his staff inspected M/s. Sree Lakshmi Narasimha Rice & Oil Mill,
                                 2


Bukkapatnam, on 16.06.1999 at 11-30 A.M. and found that the

management of the mill is indulging in clandestine business

without maintaining true and correct account and keeping huge

stocks in the mill premises. Hence, they seized ground balance

of the stocks under a panchanama for contravention of Clause-

3 of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing

and Distribution) Order, 1982 r/w Section 7 of the Essential

Commodities Act and submitted report under Section 6-A of the

Essential Commodities Act.      Then, the Joint Collector-cum-

Additional District Magistrate, Ananthapuramu i.e., the Court

below after giving opportunity of hearing to the other side

ordered for confiscation of 30% of the seized stocks.

      5)   The charges that are framed by the Joint Collector-

cum-Additional District Magistrate, Ananthapuramu, are as

follows:

      Charge No.1:- The respondent failed to produce licence to

do the business in food grains and failed to produce any record

to run the mill and to do business in food grains, as such,

contravened Clause-3 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled

Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982

and condition No.3 of the said order.

Charge No.2:- The respondent kept huge stocks in the

mill premises without valid documents and thereby

contravened Clause-11 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled

Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982

and further Clause-16(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Rice

Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984.

6) The Joint Collector-cum-Additional District

Magistrate, Ananthapuramu, issued a show cause notice to the

respondent and the respondent participated in the enquiry and

raised a contention that he is running a non-trading mill and

application of Clause-3 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled

Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982

is not applicable and Nagendra is not the Managing Partner and

he is only a construction worker. Sri P. Rajagopalaiah is the

claim petitioner and he is Managing Partner of the mill and the

seized stocks belong to farmers. The Managing Partner

maintained farmers account in Form-A Register and the

vigilance officials did not look into the same purposefully.

7) The learned Joint Collector-cum-Additional District

Magistrate, Ananthapuram, negativing the contention of the

respondent, observed that Clause-10 of the Andhra Pradesh

Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 stipulates that licensed

rice miller should not undertake custom milling of paddy

without permission of the Collector and Form-A Register shows

that about 45 bags (31.50 quintals of paddy) was hulled from

24.05.1999 to 30.05.1999 and from 01.06.1999 to 15.06.1999,

239 bags of paddy was hulled (167.9 quintals) without

obtaining the permission from the Collector or an Officer

authorised by him as required under Clause-10 of the Andhra

Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. Further 155

bags (108.50 quintals) of paddy were hulled during June, 1999

and 55 bags of paddy were received on 30.05.1999 for hulling

and it was kept idle without hulling. On 06.06.1999 though 46

bags of paddy were hulled, it was not delivered to the farmers.

The Joint Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate,

Ananthapuramu, also observed that miller exceeded three

quintals of cultivators and one quintal of agricultural labourers.

With the above said findings, the Court below ordered

confiscation of 30% of the stocks.

8) Felt aggrieved of the same, the appellants filed

Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2006 before the Sessions Judge,

Ananthapuramu, who upheld the order of the Joint Collector-

cum-Additional District Magistrate, Ananthapuramu. Felt

aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful appellants filed the

present Criminal Revision Case, challenging the judgment in

Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2006.

9) Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the

point for determination is whether the impugned order suffers

with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether

there are any grounds to interfere with the order?

Point:-

10) Sri G.V. Sreerama Murthy, learned counsel,

representing the learned counsel for the petitioners, would

contend in accordance with the grounds of Criminal Revision

Case.

11) The substance of the grounds of Criminal Revision

Case is that as the Rice Milling Act was repealed, no permission

was required to run non-trading rice mill, as such, the question

of non-production of accounts would not arise. Clause-10 of

the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984, does

not attract to the non-trading rice mills. So, the first petitioner

had no need to take any licence. The Court below erred in

framing the charges. The Court below failed to understand that

the stocks belonged to the farmers and there was no

clandestine activity. The Court below ought to have seen that

the miller in question is a non-trading mill. The appellate Court

erred in giving finding that the contention of the appellants that

the stocks belonged to the farmers is not believable. No

licensing order is required to run custom milling operation, as

such, Criminal Revision case is liable to be allowed.

12) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel,

representing the learned Public Prosecutor, sought to support

the judgment of the Court below on the ground that the

learned Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, rightly passed orders

looking into legal aspects, as such, the Criminal Revision Case

is liable to be dismissed.

13) In the light of the above contentions, there is no

dispute that the claim of the petitioners that the first petitioner

is running a non-trading rice mill is not in dispute. To decide

the contention of the petitioners such as that the first petitioner

need not take any permission to run non-trading rice mill and

the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities

Dealers (Licensing & Distribution) Order, 1982, are not

applicable to his case and further the Clause-10 of the Andhra

Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 has no

application to his case, etc., it is necessary to look into Andhra

Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage

and Regulation) Order, 2008.

14) As seen from Clause-3, it provides issue and

renewal of licence. Clause-3(i) contemplates that every

application for a licence or renewal thereof shall be made to the

licensing authority in Form-A as prescribed in Schedule-III.

Clause-3(ii) provides that every licence issued, re-issued or

renewed under this Order shall be Form-B as prescribed in

Schedule-III. Clause-3(iii) is that every application for renewal

shall be made along with the license before expiry of the period

of license. Here, the allegation is that the respondent before

the Court below violated Clause-3 and Order-3.

15) It is to be noticed that the Andhra Pradesh

Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and

Regulation) Order, 2008, has a definition clause and according

to Clause-2 of (I), rice miller means the owner or any other

person in charge of a rice mill holding a valid license issued

under this Order. Further Clause-4 of (I) refers to non-trading

rice miller and it defines that non-trading miller means a miller

who does not purchase paddy and mill into rice for sale but who

does milling of paddy of agriculturists, agricultural labourers,

etc., for personal consumption on custom milling/hire-working

basis by taking milling charges.

16) A perusal of the above reveals that a rice miller

needs to obtain a valid licence according to the Order. Clause-

3(iii) discloses that the licence needs to be renewed before its

expiry. At this juncture, it is pertinent to look into Andhra

Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. Clause-2 is the

definitions clause. It shows that licensed dealer means a person

holding a valid licence under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled

Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982.

It also contains a definition as to the licensed miller as like

Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and

Distribution) Order, 1982. It contains a definition as to what is

custom milling. So, Clause-2(c) defines it as milling of paddy

not belonging to miller into rice in his rice mill on payment of

milling charges in cash or kind. So, the basis for the first

appellant who was the sole respondent before the Court below

to run a non-trading mill must have been only after obtaining

due licence under Clause-3 of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled

Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order. So,

the contention of the appellants that in view of the abolition of

Rice Milling Regulation Act, 1958, the question of obtaining any

permission to run non-trading mill does not arise. In fact, to

run a rice mill whether it is trading rice mill or non-trading rice

mill, one has to obtain permission in the light of the provisions

contained in Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers

(Licensing and Distribution) Order. The contention of the

appellants that the Court below framed charges erroneously is

not sustainable under law.

17) Now, coming to the Clause-10 of Andhra Pradesh

Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984, no licensed rice mill shall

undertake custom milling of paddy except under and in

accordance with the permit in form set out in Schedule-VIII

issued by the Collector or an Officer authorised by him in this

behalf. Provided that no permit is required for undertaking

custom milling of paddy brought by a cultivator from the stocks

of paddy grown by him or an agricultural labourer out of the

stocks of paddy earned by him as wages. It contained an

explanation that no permit is required for undertaking custom

milling of paddy brought by the cultivator from the stocks of

paddy grown by him to a maximum of three quintals or by an

agricultural labourer out of the stocks of paddy earned by him

as wages up to a maximum of one quintal at a time in a month.

18) Though the first appellant is a non-trading rice mill,

but, he is bound by the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rice

Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. Apart from this, Clause-16

(1) deals that every licensed miller and licensed dealer shall

maintain a register indicating the quantity of paddy milled and

rice delivered under levy during the day in the relevant Form.

19) Here, the substance of the allegations are that

when the inspecting authority inspected the premises, they

found that management is indulging in clandestine business

without maintaining true and correct account and keeping huge

stocks. The contention of the petitioners that vigilance officials

purposefully did not look into the record is not tenable. Apart

from this, the order of the learned Joint Collector-cum-

Additional District Magistrate, Ananthapuramu, reveals the

quantity of the paddy which was milled by the first appellant.

The first appellant did not maintain proper record when the

vigilance officials inspected the rice mill to furnish the

information with regard to the name of the farmers to whom

the stocks belonged to. So, without being borne out by any

record whatsoever, it appears the first appellant stored huge

stock which is nothing but in clear violation of the provisions of

law as referred to above.

20) Having regard to the overall facts and

circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned

Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, rightly appreciated the

contentions and rightly dismissed the Criminal Appeal. The

contention of the petitioners that first petitioner need not

obtain any permission to run non-trading rice mill, etc.,

deserves no merits, in the light of the reasons furnished supra.

Hence, the impugned order does not suffer with any illegality,

irregularity and impropriety, as such, the Criminal Revision

Case is liable to be dismissed.

21) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is

dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 01.03.2023.

PGR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

CRL. REVISION CASE NO.939 OF 2009

Date: 01.03.2023

PGR