Telangana High Court
Mahajan Sachin vs The State Of Telangana on 30 April, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.3076 & 3080 OF 2018 COMMON ORDER:
The Criminal Revision Case No.3076 of 2018 is
filed by the petitioner-driver of TATA Ace seeking to set
aside the Common Judgment dated 28.09.2018 in
Criminal Appeal Nos.6 and 21 of 2018 (for short
‘impugned Judgment) passed by the learned Sessions
Judge at Nizamabad (for short ‘learned appellate Court’)
wherein the Order dated 04.01.2018 in Case No.
CS6/211/2017-1 passed by the learned District Collector,
Nizamabad (FAC) (for short ‘the learned District
Collector’), was modified by reducing the confiscation from
100% value of entire seized stocks to confiscation of 40%
of the value.
02. The Criminal Revision Case No.3080 of 2018 is
filed by the petitioner-owner of the rice mill seeking to set
aside impugned Judgment passed by the learned
appellate Court wherein the Order dated 04.01.2018 in
Case No. CS6/211/2017-1 passed by the learned District
2
Collector, was modified by reducing the penalty imposed
from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.20,000/-.
03. These Criminal Revision Cases are arising out of
the same impugned Judgment and subject matter involved
in both the matters is one and the same, thereby, these
matters are being disposed of by way of a Common Order.
04. Heard Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record.
05. The case of the prosecution is that on
16.10.2017 at about 10:00 PM., on credible information
the complainant proceeded to the premises of
M/s.Chandra Rice Mill, Srinivasnagar, Bodhan duly
securing panchas and noticed a TATA Ace bearing No. TS
16 UB 3859 (for short ‘vehicle’) loaded with 20 rice bags.
The petitioner-driver disclosed that the said rice was being
transported to Narsi Road. On suspecting that the said
rice is a PDS rice, the complainant took the mill into
custody and found 266.50, 169.25, 154.00, 84.50 and
3
8.00(loaded in vehicle) quintals of rice. The said rice has
been seized. As there was a contravention of the Clause
17(e) of the Telangana State Public Distribution System
Control Order, 2016, (for short ‘TSPDS Control Order,
2016) a case in Crime No.312 of 2017 was registered.
06. The learned District Collector after conducting
the enquiry found that the petitioner-owner of the mill is
involved in purchasing and selling of PDS rice for illegal
gains and that the petitioner-owner of the mill was found in
contravention of Clause 17(e) of the TSPDS Control
Order, 2016 read with Section 5 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and ordered for
confiscation of 100% value of the seized stocks worth
Rs.15,78,875/- in favour of the Government and further
imposed penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- on the petitioner-driver
of the vehicle.
07. Aggrieved by the said Order passed by the
learned District Collector, both the petitioners preferred the
Criminal Appeals before the learned appellate Court and
4
the learned appellate Court vide impugned Common
Judgment modified the order of the learned District
Collector confiscating 100% value of entire seized stocks
to confiscation of 40% of the value. So also, reduced the
penalty imposed on vehicle from Rs.1,50,000/- to
Rs.20,000/-.
08. Aggrieved by the above Common Judgment, the
present Criminal Revision Cases are preferred by the
petitioners.
09. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that
the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged
contraventions. As per Clause 2(s) of the TSPDS Control
Order, 2016, the rice is scheduled commodity. As per
Section 3 of the Act, the rice is not shown in the schedule
to the Act. The rice involved in the present case is not
proved as a PDS rice meant for public distribution. There
was a Control Order regulating the purchase and sale of
rice, which came into force on 28.07.2008 under Andhra
Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealer (Licensing,
5
Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 and it was in force
till 30.09.2014 and thereafter the same was not extended.
Therefore, there is no prohibition with regard to the
purchase, sale, storage and transportation of rice and
paddy as on the date of the alleged seizure. Hence, both
the learned District Collector as well as learned appellate
Court have committed error in confiscating the rice and
imposing penalty on the vehicle driver. Hence, while
praying to set aside the impugned Common Judgment by
allowing these Criminal Revision Cases, learned counsel
for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Kailash
Prasad Yadav and another v. State of Jharkhan and
another1 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of India
at Paragraph No.12 it was held that:
“12. Yet again, in Deputy Commissioner,
Dakshina Kannada District v. Rudolph
Fernandes [(2000) 3 SCC 306], whereupon
again Mr. Singh has relied upon, it was held:
“6. In the light of the aforesaid provisions, the
second proviso to Section 6-A [sic 6-A(1)] is
required to be considered. First it is to be stated1
2007 (5) SCC 769 (Indian Kanoon)
6that the proviso limits the power of the
competent authority to recover fine up to the
market price for releasing the animal, vehicle,
vessel or other conveyance sought to be
confiscated. So maximum fine that can be
levied in lieu of confiscation should not exceed
the market price. For our purpose, the relevant
part of the proviso would be “in the case of …
vehicle … the owner of such … vehicle … shall
be given an option to pay, in lieu of its
confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market
price at the date of seizure of the essential
commodity sought to be carried by such …
vehicle”. Question is whether fine should not
exceed the market price of the seized essential
commodity or whether it should not exceed the
market price of the vehicle. For this purpose, it
appears that there is some ambiguity in the
section. It is not specifically provided that in lieu
of confiscation of the vehicle a fine not
exceeding the market price of the vehicle or of
the seized essential commodity is to be taken
as a measure. Still however, it is difficult to say
that the measure of fine is related to the market
price of the essential commodity at the date of
its seizure. It nowhere provides that fine should
not exceed the market price of the essential
7commodity at the date of seizure of the vehicle.
The proviso requires the competent authority to
give an option to the owner of such vehicle to
pay in lieu of confiscation a fine not exceeding
the market price. What is to be confiscated is
the vehicle and, therefore, the measure of fine
would be relatable to the market price of the
vehicle at the date of seizure of the essential
commodity sought to be carried by such
vehicle”
10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the
State submitted that the learned District Collector as well
as learned Sessions Judge have rightly considered the
material on record and passed the impugned Judgments
and there are no illegalities or irregularities in the said
Judgments, for which no interference of this Court is
needed and prayed to dismiss these Criminal Revision
Cases.
11. On a careful scrutiny of the material placed on
record, it is to be noted that the rice was seized by the
respondent No.3-Deputy Tahsildar(CS) suspecting the
same as ‘PDS rice’ vide panchanama dated 17.10.2017
8
and a complaint under Section 6A of the Act was lodged
for contravention of Clause 17(e) of the TSPDS Control
Order, 2016 read with Section 5 of the Act.
12. In this context, it is relevant to extract Section 6A
of the Act, which reads as under:
“6A. Confiscation of essential commodity.–
(1)Where any essential commodity is seized in
pursuance of an order made under section 3 in
relation thereto, a report of such seizure shall,
without unreasonable delay, be made to the
Collector of the district or the Presidency town
in which such essential commodity is seized
and whether or not a prosecution is instituted
for the contravention of such order, the
Collector may, if he thinks it expedient so to do,
direct the essential commodity so seized to be
produced for inspection before him, and if he is
satisfied that there has been a contravention of
the order may order confiscation of–(a)the
essential commodity so seized;(b)any package,
covering or receptacle in which such essential
commodity is found; and(c)any animal, vehicle,
vessel or other conveyance used in carrying
such essential commodity: Provided that
9without prejudice to any action which may be
taken under any other provision of this Act, no
foodgrains or edible oilseeds in pursuance of an
order made under section 3 in relation thereto
from a producer shall, if the seized foodgrains
or edible oilseeds have been produced by him,
be confiscated under this section: Provided
further that in the case of any animal, vehicle,
vessel or other conveyance used for the
carriage of goods or passengers for hire, the
owner of such animal, vehicle, vessel or other
conveyance shall be given an option to pay, in
lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the
market price at the date of seizure of the
essential commodity sought to be carried by
such animal, vehicle, vessel or other
conveyance.(2)Where the Collector, on
receiving a report of seizure or on inspection of
any essential commodity under sub-section (1),
is of the opinion that the essential commodity is
subject to speedy and natural decay or it is
otherwise expedient in the public interest so to
do, he may–(i)order the same to be sold at the
controlled price, if any, fixed for essential
commodity under this Act or under any other
law for the time being in force; or(ii)where no
such price is fixed, order the same to be sold by
10public auction: Provided that in case of
foodgrains, the Collector may, for its equitable
distribution and availability at fair prices, order
the same to be sold through fair price shops at
the price fixed by the Central Government or by
the State Government, as the case may be, for
the retail sale of such foodgrains to the
public.(3)Where any essential commodity is
sold, as aforesaid, the sale proceeds thereof,
after deduction of the expenses of any such
sale or auction or other incidental expenses
relating thereto, shall–(a)where no order or
confiscation is ultimately passed by the
Collector,(b)where an order passed on appeal
under sub-section (1) of section 6C so requires,
or(c)where in a prosecution instituted for the
contravention of the order in respect of which
an order of confiscation has been made under
this section, the person concerned is acquitted,
be paid to the owner or the person from whom it
is seized.”
13. It is also relevant to extract Clause 17(e) of the
TSPDS Control Order, 2016, which reads as under:
“17(e) If any person is found to have purchased
the rice supplied through PDS either from the
11card holder or the F.P. shop dealer or any other
source, he shall be liable for criminal action and
imposition of penalty as may be fixed by the
Competent authority.”
14. It is an undisputed fact that the ‘rice’ falls under
the scheduled commodity but not under essential
commodity. It is to be noted that ‘rice’ is not shown in the
schedule annexed to the Act. Moreover, there is no
mention as to from whom the said rice was purchased by
the petitioner-owner of the mill. Furthermore, except
stating that the complainant acted upon credible
information, there is no mention of details of informant or
relevant source of information. However, to prove that the
said rice is ‘PDS rice’, the details or particulars of any card
holder, fair price shop dealer, or any other source, from
where the petitioner-owner of the mill secured the said
rice, are not mentioned in the order of the learned District
Collector.
15. Here, it is pertinent to note that there is no
proper discussion or cogent reasons assigned by the
12
learned District Collector as to how he came to a
conclusion that the seized rice is ‘PDS rice’. It is relevant
to mention here that except the rice meant for public
distribution, there is no prohibition with regard to purchase,
sale or storage and transportation of rice and paddy. So
also, there is no material to show that there is nexus
between the owner of the mill and owner-cum-driver of the
vehicle. In the absence of concrete evidence or material
to show that the seized rice is PDS rice and its illegal
transportation, the same cannot be confiscated.
Therefore, the Confiscation and Penalty Order dated
04.01.2018 in Case No. CS6/211/2017-1 passed by the
learned District Collector, Nizamabad (FAC), is illegal in
the eye of law.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is
of the firm opinion that the learned District Collector as
well as the learned appellate Court have failed to observe
that there is no proper material to show that the seized
rice is PDS rice. In that view of the matter, the findings
13
recorded by the learned District Collector as well as the
learned appellate Court are liable to be set aside.
17. Accordingly, these Criminal Revision Cases are
allowed setting aside the impugned Common Judgment
dated 28.09.2018 in Criminal Appeal Nos.6 and 21 of
2018, modifying the Confiscation and Penalty Order dated
04.01.2018 in Case No.CS6/211/2017-1 passed by the
learned District Collector, Nizamabad (FAC). The entire
value of the confiscated stocks shall be refunded to the
petitioner-owner of the mill. The penalty amount, if any,
paid shall be refunded to the petitioner-owner-cum-driver
of the vehicle.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 30-APR-2025
KHRM
14
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
PD
COMMON ORDER
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.3076 & 3080 OF 2018
Date: 30-APR-2025
KHRM
