Telangana High Court
Punati Rama Rao, Khammam Dt., vs State Of Telangana, Rep Pp 2 Otrs., on 30 November, 2021
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.133 of 2015
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-
appellant-respondent assailing the order dated 31.07.2014 passed in
Crl.A. No.4 of 2013 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Khammam against the order dated 10.12.2012 passed in MC No.121
of 2012 by the Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate,
Khammam District.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Deputy Tahsildar
(Civil Supplies), Khammam Urban Mandal, on receipt of credible
information about the irregularities committed by the Dealer of Fair
Price shop No.13011, Mallaram-I and Incharge Dealer of Fair Price
shop No.13012, Mallaram-II of Mallaram Village of Thallada
Mandal, as per the directions of the Joint Collector, Khammam along
with V.R.O., Mallaram proceeded to the Mallaram Village on
23.03.2012, summoned the mediators and surprised the premises of
Fair Price shop No.13011 and found certain irregularities committed
by the Dealer and seized the ground stock of 31.08 quintals of PDS
rice, 0.20 kgs. of sugar and 280 liters of kerosene oil from the
premises of Fair Price shop No.13011, Mallaram-I under cover of
Panchanama and submitted a report under Section 6-A of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 proposing confiscation of the entire seized
stock in favour of the Government. The Joint Collector, after going
through the material papers and considering the contention of the
Dr.GRR,J
Dealer at the time of final hearing, held the charges of improper
maintenance of Fair Price shop and records of the Fair Price shop
resulted in excess stock of 8.72 quintals of PDS rice, shortage of 0.02
kgs. of sugar, 38 packets of Palm Oil and excess quantity of 34 liters
of Kerosene Oil on the ground with regard to the stock and ordered
confiscation of 100% of the seized stock or its value in favour of the
Government, vide order dated 10.12.2012 in M.C. No.121 of 2012.
The petitioner-Fair Price shop dealer, who was the respondent in M.C.
No.121 of 2012 preferred an appeal before the Principal Sessions
Judge, Khammam vide Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2013. The learned
Principal Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the order of
the Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Khammam in
M.C. No.121 of 2012.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this revision
case contending that the learned Judge ought to have considered the
explanation submitted by the petitioner on 11.04.2012 in the case
under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act stating that
without measuring the kerosene, the Inspecting Officer came to
conclusion that there was excess stock of 34 liters of Kerosene Oil.
The learned Judge ought to have taken the report submitted by the
Tahsildar in R.C. No.B/474/12, dated 29.05.2012, wherein the
Tahsildar submitted that there were no complaints from the card
holders and further stated that due to the invisibility of thumb
impression, the card holders affixed their thumb impression again and
the 3rd respondent without proper verification of the records, alleged
Dr.GRR,J
the charges against the petitioner. The learned Judge ought to have
considered that there was no diversion of stock by the petitioner and
ought to have considered that there was no contravention of Control
Order and Clause 24(i) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System
Control Order, 2008 and stated that the minor variation in respect of
single commodity upto 1.5% may be allowed taking into
consideration the transactions of one month. The learned Judge ought
to have seen that if the 1.5% of permissible variation had taken into
account, there was no variation with regard to sugar i.e. charge No.2,
and prayed to allow the revision.
4. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor. There is no representation for respondent
No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner besides the
grounds stated in the revision petition, relied upon the judgment of
this Court in Chilukuri Balaji Groundnut Decortication Mill,
Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam v. State of Andhra Pradesh and
another1 on the aspect that confiscation could be ordered only in
respect of the value of stock found in variation between book balance
and ground balance and not the value of whole stock seized during
inspection by Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies.
6. Without going into the merits of the case, it is observed in the
present case also, the Joint Collector mentioned that the Deputy
2013 (2) ALD (Crl.) 545 (AP)
Dr.GRR,J
Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) found variations in the ground stock when
compared with the entries in the records and noted as under:
Sl.No. Name of the Stock to be Stock to be Total stock to Actual Variation
Commodity available in available in be available stock
the shop the shop in both the available
No.13011 No.13012 Shops
1 PDS Rice 9.70 12.76 22.46 31.18 (+) 8.72
2 Sugar 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.20 (-) 0.02
3 P.Oil 19 19 38 0 (-) 38
4 Kerosene 137 liters 109 liters 246 liters 280 (+)34
Oil liters liters
and he seized the ground stock available but not the variation of stock.
The Joint Collector ordered for confiscation of 100% of the seized
stock. For whatever be the reason, the Principal Sessions Judge also
confirmed the orders of the Joint Collector in M.C. No.121 of 2012
dated 10.12.2012. The same was against the orders of this Court in
Chilukuri Balaji Groundnut Decortication Mill case (supra),
wherein it was held that the confiscation can be ordered only in
respect of the variation portion of the seized stock. As such, it is
considered fit to allow the revision by setting aside the order dated
31.07.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2013 by the Principal
Sessions Judge, Khammam and the order dated 10.12.2012 passed in
MC No.121 of 2012 by the Joint Collector & Additional District
Magistrate, Khammam, and directing that confiscation shall be only
on the value of the stock which was found in variation between the
book balance and the ground balance but not the value of the whole
stock seized by the Deputy Tahsildar, (Civil Supplies), Khammam
Urban Mandal, Khammam District.
Dr.GRR,J
7. The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of in the above
terms. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J
November 30, 2021
KTL
