HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.912 OF 2010 Dated 21-7-2014 Between:
Nalluri Koteswara Rao.
Petitioner.
And:
The State through Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer, Vijayawada represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.912 OF 2010 ORDER:
This revision is against orders dated 25-3-2010 in E.C.Appeal No.178 of 2009 on the file of Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam whereunder order dated 7-9-2009 in E.C.P.No.135 of 2009 on the file of Joint Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam is confirmed.
Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:
Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer, Vijayawada filed a petition before Joint Collector, Krishna under Section 6A of E.C.Act, 1955 alleging that on receipt of credible information that B.P.T./preferred varieties of paddy has been stored in huge quantities unauthorisedly in State Warehousing Corporation, Jaggaihapeta by the traders on benami names and such illegal storage has resulted in abnormal increase in the prices of rice of BPT/preferred varieties and thereby, public in general are not in a position to purchase the rice and on that, the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer along with Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Officials and Civil Supplies Officials have gone to State Ware Housing Corporation Godown, Jaggaiahpet on 9-6-2009 at about 11-30 A.M., and verified the storage records from the in-charge Assistant Manager of Godown and found that as many as 69 persons have stored paddy in the godown and the present petitioner is one among them. According to the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer, Vijayawada this petitioner has stored 212-80 Quintals of B.P.T.variety of paddy, vide deposit number 7785 and 11855. Thereafter, Joint Collector issued a show cause notice to the revision petitioner herein for which he submitted explanation stating that he is a resident of Penuganchiprolu village and farmer by avocation and he owns 6.99 cents of wet land and he is cultivating 9.70 cents of wet land as tenant and he has produced 294 bags of paddy from his own lands and these paddy bags were stored in the State Ware Housing Godown Jaggaihapet and that paddy is produced in his own land and leasehold land, therefore, there is no contravention of clause 4 of A.P.Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. Learned Joint Collector after considering the explanation of the revision petitioner found that the contention of revision petitioner herein is not correct and on verification of the village accounts relating to the lands claimed by the revision petitioner, it is found that Subabul crop was cultivated in those lands but not paddy and in view of that negatived the objection of the revision petitioner and ordered for confiscation of 70% of the seized paddy. Aggrieved by the said order of Joint Collector, Krishna, revision petitioner preferred appeal to the Sessions Court, Krishna at Machilipatnam and learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of the Joint Collector. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
At the time of ordering notice, this court ordered for release of confiscated stock in favour of the petitioner on furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.2,00,000/-.
Heard both sides.
Though as many as 30 grounds are taken in the revision, the main arguments advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner is that both joint collector and District Judge failed to examine clause 2 (4) of A.P.Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 and that the petitioner is an agriculturist possessing land which is evident from pattadar pass book. It is further contended that no licence is required for mere storing and a solitary instance of storing the food grains is not a violation of clause 2(4) of A.P.Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, storage and Regulation) Order, 2008.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that plea of the petitioner that the seized stock is produced from his own land and the leasehold land is falsified by cogent and convincing documentary evidence and that there is a clear finding by the joint collector that paddy is stored for trading purpose and therefore, the objection of the revision petitioner is not at all tenable.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the order of the Joint Collector and the judgment of the Sessions Judge are legal, proper and correct?
POINT:
There is no dispute with regard to seizure of paddy from the godown of State Ware Housing Corporation which was deposited by the revision petitioner under account No. 7785 and 11855. It is the specific case of revision petitioner that both the joint Collector and Sessions Judge have not verified clause 2 (7) of A.P.Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, storage and Regulation) Order, 2008. Before adverting to objection of the revision petitioner, I feel it necessary to read those two provisions which reads as follows:
Clause 2(4):
“Dealer in relation to food grains” means a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage but excluding importers for sale of any one of the food grains in the schedule-1 in quantity exceeding Twenty quintals at any one time, or in quantity of exceeding fifty quintals of all food grains taken together, but does not include a framer/agriculturist/ryot who stores food grains produced by his for personal cultivation or for seed purpose.”
Clause 2(7):
“”Commission Agent” means the commission agent having, in the customary course of business as such agent, authority either to sell Scheduled Commodities or to consign Scheduled Commodities for purpose of sale or to buy Scheduled Commodities.”
From the above provisions, it is clear that sub- clause 4 deals with dealer in relation to food grains and sub-clause 7 deals with commission agent.
Here it is not the case of prosecuting agency that the petitioner is a commission agent. From the material it is the specific allegation against petitioner that as trader he deposited huge paddy in the godowns of State Ware Housing Corporation illegally which resulted abnormal increase in the prices of that particular variety and thereby, general public are not in a position to purchase that variety of rice.
Now specific plea taken by revision petitioner is that the stocks seized from the Ware Housing Corporation Godown are the agricultural produce from his own lands and leasehold lands. He contended that he got Ac.6.99 cents of own land and Ac.9.70 cents leasehold land. He has furnished copy of pattadar pass book and other revenue records relating to these two extents and the learned Joint Collector after through verification of village records pertaining to these lands found that paddy was not raised in the said lands, on the other hand, subabul crop was raised. When the village accounts clearly falsified the contention of the revision petitioner, it is for him to show as to how he got this paddy because it is not a small quantity. According to the petitioner, this paddy is the produce from about Ac.17-00 of land. Clause 2 (4) deals with the dealer and according to which a person storing quantity exceeding 20 quintals at any one time or quantity exceeding 50 quintals of all food grains taken together is to be treated as dealer and the exception to it is farmer, agriculturist, ryot, who stores food grains produced by his personal cultivation.
So when the revision petitioner failed in his attempt to show that the seized paddy is the agricultural produce by his own cultivation and as the quantity is more than the prescribed limit, he would fall under the definition of dealer. Both the learned Joint Collector and learned Sessions Judge held that the petitioner has failed to prove his contention that this paddy is the agricultural produce from his own land and leasehold land. On the other hand, village records disclose that the revision petitioner has not raised any paddy crop in his land and the crop raised in his land is only subabul.
Learned advocate submitted that a solitary instance of storing food grains cannot be treated as violation of the above referred clauses and to support his argument, he placed reliance in an unreported decision of this court in Criminal Revision Case No.982 of 2010 dated 14-7-2010. (Kotha Govinda Rao Vs. The State of A.P., through Asst.Grain Purchasing Officer, Vijayawada rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad).
I have perused the above referred decision and in that case, there was no material to show that the claimant was carrying on business or engaged in business in sale of paddy and in that case, prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner therein was a dealer within the meaning of control orders.
But in our case, there is ample evidence to show that petitioner is not a farmer and he does not fall under exemption and on the other hand, the plea put forth by him that he cultivated paddy and produced paddy from his own land and leasehold lands, is proved to be false through recorded evidence. Therefore, decision relied on by advocate for revision petitioner is not helpful to the facts of this case.
Learned counsel also relied on a decision of this court reported in GURRAM VENKATESWARLU AND OTHERS v. COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AND OTHERS
[1]
( ) wherein it is held that a solitary instance of storing food grains would not be in violation of provisions of control order. In that case, observation of this court is that single instance of storing food grains by cultivator would not constitute carrying on business and would not attract provisions of control order.
But here in our case, though petitioner contended that he is a cultivator and stock seized is agricultural produce from his land, the same is proved to be incorrect and on the other hand, joint Collector on considering report of Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer and the panchanama and other documents held that petitioner is a trader and therefore, this decision is also not helpful to the petitioner.
Further as seen from the explanation given by petitioner to his show cause notice and also grounds urged before the learned Sessions Judge, his main contention is that he is a farmer and the paddy was the agricultural produce from his own land and the leasehold lands and he never contended that solitary instance of stocking food grains do not attract the meaning of a ‘dealer’.
Scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited one and the court while exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot go into appreciation of evidence unless it is per se perverse.
Section 397 Cr.P.C. empowers High Court or any Sessions Judge to call for and examine the records of the inferior courts for the purpose of satisfying as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any findings, sentence or order recorded or passed. The object of section is to set right patent defect or error.
Here though the petitioner contended that both the Joint Collector and the Sessions Judge have not examined the provisions, on a reading of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, this objection cannot be accepted. Learned Sessions Judge dealt with the matter in depth and examined each and every point and rightly discarded the objection and confirmed the confiscation order of the learned Joint Collector. Primary meaning of legality is that everything must be done in accordance with law. Here, the Joint Collector and the Sessions Judge have examined the material on record in accordance with law and there is no illegality in their approach. Further, on a verification of the material, I am of the view that there are no incorrect findings either in the order of Joint Collector or in the judgment of the Sessions Judge and all the findings are based on sound reasoning.
On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that both orders are well reasoned orders and there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
For these reasons, the revision is dismissed as devoid of merits.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 21-7-2014 Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.912 OF 2010 Dated 21-7-2014 [1] 2014 (2) ALT page 7