Sri T.Anand Babu vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Final Order
Court:High Court of Haryana and Punjab
Judge:Hon'ble Samudrala Govindarajulu
Case Status:Dismissed
Order Date:25 Jun 2010
CNR:HBHC010000462010

AI Summary

Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order

Order Issued After Hearing

Purpose:

First Hearing

Listed On:

25 Jun 2010

Original Order Copy

Get a certified copy of this order

Download True Copy

Order Text

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

PRESENT:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1165 OF 2010

BETWEEN:

Sri T. Anand babu S/o. T. Babu Rao

…. Petitioner

AND

The Joint Collector (CS) II, R.R. District.

…. Respondent

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1165 OF 2010

ORDER:

The petitioner is accused of contravention under Clause 3 and Conditions (i) to (v) of the APSCD (L, S & R) Order 2008 on the ground that he did not possess Food Grain Dealers licence at all and he was storing 50 quintals of rice for the purpose of sale.

  1. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in 6-A case No.A7/394/2009 found the petitioner guilty of the said contravention and ordered confiscation of 100% of the seized stock. The Principal Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2009 confirmed the said order of confiscation.

  2. At this Stage, there is no doubt that on the date of inspection by the raid party on 09-05-2009, the petitioner was not at all having Food Grain Dealers licence. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner is an educated unemployed youth and he started the business recently and that he is not well acquainted with rules regarding obtaining of licence.

  3. Ignorance of law is no excuse. The matter remains that the petitioner was doing rice business without obtaining Food Grain Dealers licence. So, I find that the petitioner has contravened Clause 3 and Conditions (i) to (v) of the above control order.

  4. Insofar as confiscation of the seized stock is concerned, it is left to the authority under Section 6-A or the Sessions Judge under Section 6-C either to confiscate the entire seized stock or any portion thereof. Power to modify order of confiscation under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act enables the Sessions Judge to alter percentage of confiscated stock depending upon facts and circumstances of each case.

  5. This is a case where the petitioner was doing rice business without any licence at all. At the same time, licence is required only in the case of storage of stock over and above 20 quintals of rice. Upto 20 quintals of rice, no licence is required for storage. Therefore, this Court feels it appropriate to seize the stock of rice over and above the permissible limit of 20 quintals of rice.

  6. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed, but modifying the quantity confiscation from 50 quintals to 30 quintals.

SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,

J

__________________________

June 25, 2010 KTL