Monday, 13, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Chichhadi Satyanarayana, Khm Dist. vs Tahsildar, Chinthuru
2024 Latest Caselaw 2288 Tel

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

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").

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

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.

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

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter