Ms.B.S.Bhanumathi

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT SRIKAKULAM

Present:- Ms. B.S. Bhanumathi, B.Sc., LL.M.,

Prl.District & Sessions Judge,

Srikakulam.

Wednesday, this the 05 th day of February 2014

Crl. Appeal No. 122/2012

From what court the appeal :The District Collector, Srikakulam. is preferred.

Number of the case in that :S.R. No.25/2012- S.5, dt.15.10.2012 court

Number of the appeal: CRL. APPEAL No. 122/2012 The Name and designation of Sasupalli Venkata Santheswara Rao, the appellant:S/o late Lakshminarayana, Hindu, aged 41 years, Kapu by caste, business,Proprietor: Lakshminarayana Modern Rice Mill, Jammu Junction, Narasannapeta mandalam, Srikakulam district.

The law and sentence under :The Collector, Srikakulam passed an which it was imposed in the order dt. 15.10.2012 order holding lower court.that the respondent is found guilty of chargespartlyandordered confiscation of 10% of the value of the seized stock and the amount to be deposited in Civil Deposits only and release the remaining stock of its value to the respondent.

Whether confirmed, modified Confirmed – Appeal dismissed. or reversed if modified, the In the result, the appeal is modification.dismissed confirming the order dated 15.10.2012 in SR No. 25/2012- S.5 passed by the Collector, Srikakulam.

Date of presentation::08.11.2012

Date of filing:18.12.2012

Notice issued by court to 18.12.2012 appear: Bail bonds if appellant has :….. been let out on bail: Appellant ordered to appear:24.01.2013

Date of hearing:29.01.2014 2Crl.Appeal No. 122/2012

Date: 05.02.2014

Date of order:05.02.2014 This appeal coming on 05.02.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri C. Narasimhamurty, Advocate for the appellant and of Sri T. Chadra sekhara Rao, Public Prosecutor for State-Respondent having heard both sides and upon perusing the petition appeal and the proceedings and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court do adjudge and pass the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This is an appeal preferred against the order dated 15.10.2012 in

SR No. 25/2012- S.5 of the Collector, Srikakulam, by which the appellant was found guilty of charges partly and ordered confiscation of 10% of the value of the seized stock and the amount to be deposited in Civil

Deposits.

2.The case against the appellant is briefly as follows:

On 09.04.2012, on receipt of reliable information, the Regional

Vigilance & Enforcement Officer, Srikakulam, Deputy Superintendent of

Police (V & E Dept.) surprised Laxmi Narayana M.R.M., Jummu junction,

Narasannapeta along with the Revenue Inspector, Narasannapeta in the presence of mediators Gantayada Ramamurty, Kola Srinivasarao,

Cheepuru Prathap, S. Sridhar- Revenue Inspector of Narasannapeta,

Sadhasivuni Kanakarao- VRO of Tamarapalli and Reddi Dalappadu Naidu - VRO of Sundarapuram and the proprietor of the rice mill Sasupalli

Venkata Santheswara Rao i.e., the appellant.

On verification of ‘B’ Register and the stock available in the premises of the mill, the following variation was found by the Inspecting team.

Paddy available as per “B” stock register 3107 Quintals and sales were Nil, but the stock available on ground is 3836 quintals and thus 3Crl.Appeal No. 122/2012

Date: 05.02.2014

variation is 729 quintals in excess of stock in the register. The value of the stock is Rs.41,42,880/-.

The Tahsildar, Narasannapeta reported that the appellant was not doing business in fair and doing it clandestinely by not maintaining true and correct accounts in violation of procurement of APSCD (Licensing,

Storage and Regulation) Order 2008 and that the variation is more than permissible variation of 6% under Clause 18 (2)(c) of the Control Order.

It is further found that the miller had delivered only 15120 quintals from 01.12.2011 to 09.04.2012 as levy to F.C.I. and the miller has not maintained A & B Registers properly indicating paddy milled, rise delivered and levy up to 09.04.2012 as required under Clause 16 of A.P.

Rice Procurement Levy Order 1984. Thus, there is prima facie contravention of the clause 18 (2) of A.P. Scheduled Commodities

Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order 2008 and Clauses 3, 16 of A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order 1984.

The seized stock of 3836 quintals of paddy was handed over to

Sri T. Nageswara Rao, Lakshmi Nageswara Ground Nut and Oil, Devadi village, Narasannapeta Mandal, for safe custody.

3.The following charges were framed against the appellant:

(1) Respondent is not doing business in a fair manner and doing clandestine business by not maintaining true and correct accounts in violation of procurement of APSCD (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order 2008. The variation excess in stock of 729 quintals of paddy, with that of book balances is beyond the 6% permissible variation allowable under clause 19 (2) (c) of the Control Order. On verification of B Register it was found that the miller so far delivered only 15201 quintals (1.12.2011 to 09.04.2012) of rice as levy to the FCI.

(2)The respondent has not maintained A & B Registers properly indicating paddy milled rice delivered and levy up to 4Crl.Appeal No. 122/2012

Date: 05.02.2014

09.04.2012 as required under clause 16 of A.P. Rice procurement (Levy) Order 1984.

4.After hearing and furnishing the explanation and written arguments by the appellant, the learned Collector passed the impugned order.

5.In the explanation, the appellant submitted that he had been doing business by obtaining all the required licenses for long time without any blemish, that on 09.04.2012, the complainant and their officials seized 3107 quintals of paddy stating that there was contravention of the Essential Commodities Act, that the seized stock of 3107 quintals of paddy belongs to person offered explanation and further that by the time of inspection, 7 farmers by name (1) Ybaji

Venkatarao, s/o Chinnama Naidu of Lingalapadu village; (2) Muddada

Ramamurty, S/o Appanna of Narasannapeta; (3) Sasupalli

Satyanarayana, S/o Varahala Naidu of Polaki; (4) Yabaji Rajagopala Rao,

S/o Chinnama Naidu of Lingalapadu; (5) Thadela Govinda Rao, S/o Gowri

Naidu of Santhalakashmipura; (6) Gedela Trinadha Rao, S/o Ramanna of

Jilledu Makivalasa and (7) Polaki Ramarao, S/o late Dalinaidu of Polaki, had brought 729 quintals of paddy to the rice mill of the appellant for the purpose of selling the same to the appellant and kept the stock in the verandah of the mill and was bargaining the rate and at that juncture, the inspection was conducted and caught hold the paddy bags treating the same as stock of the appellant in spite of representations made by 7 farmers and illegally and unlawfully seized the entire stock and booked the present case unlawfully. It is further submitted in the explanation that the appellant had given very good 5Crl.Appeal No. 122/2012

Date: 05.02.2014

levy to the government and also ready to give more levy to the government and that the complainant and the officials obtained the signatures of the son of the appellant on the blank papers under threat and coercion, at the road of Jammu junction while he was coming to the village from Srikakulam. Therefore, the appellant prayed the Collector to accept the explanation and drop further proceedings.

4.However, 7 other farmers filed their claims before the Collector claiming part of the seized stock and seeking to release as follows:

S. Name of the Farmer Contention of the FarmerNo. of No.& Villagebags claimed for release.

1Gedela Trinadha He contended that he has an extent of Rao, Ac.5.50 cts of wet land in Jilledu s/o Ramanna, makivalasa village, Polaki Mandal and 163 Jilledumakivalasa raising paddy crop every year, which (outof village, yields 177 paddy bags every year. He total 3836 Polaki Mandalbrought 163 bags of paddy each bag Qtls.of weighing 80 KGs to the appellant’s mill paddy) on 09.04.2012 for sale and kept the stock in the verandah of the mill and bargaining of rate, meanwhile inspection was conducted and the stock was caught, without hearing request of the claimant.

2Yabaji Rajagopla raoHe contended that he has an extent of S/o Chinnam NaiduAc.4.82 ctsof wet land at Lingalapadu village,Narasannapeta villages and raising 140 Narasannapeta paddy crop every year, which yields 150 (outof Mandalpaddy bags every year. He brought 140 total 3836 bags of paddy each bag weighing 80 KGs Qtls.of to the appellant’s mill on 09.04.2012 for paddy)) sale and kept the stock in the verandah of the mill and bargaining of rate, meanwhile inspection was conducted and the stock was caught, without hearing request of the claimant.

3Yabaji Venkatarao,He contended that he has an extent of S/o Chinnam NaiduAc.5.00 ctsof wet land at Lingalapadu village,Narasannapeta villages and raising Narasannapeta paddy crop every year, which yields 175 6Crl.Appeal No. 122/2012

Date: 05.02.2014

Mandalpaddy bags every year. He brought 153 153 bags of paddy each bag weighing 80 KGs (out of to the appellant’s mill on 09.04.2012 for total 3836 sale and kept the stock in the verandah Qtls. of of the mill and bargaining of rate, paddy) meanwhile inspection was conducted and the stock was caught, without hearing request of the claimant.

4Muddada He contended that he has an extent of RamamurtyAc.8.50 ctsof wet land at S/o AppannamNarasannapeta villages and raising 174 Narasannapeta paddy crop every year, which yields 250 (out of villagepaddy bags every year. He brought 174 total 3836 And Mandalbags of paddy each bag weighing 80 KGs Qtls. of to the appellant’s mill on 09.04.2012 for paddy) sale and kept the stock in the verandah of the mill and bargaining of rate, meanwhile inspection was conducted and the stock was caught, without hearing request of the claimant.

5Sasupallli He contended that he has an extent of SatyanarayanaAc.4.00 of wet land at Polaki villages S/o Varahala Naidu,and raising paddy crop every year, which Polaki yields 120 paddy bags every year. He 110 brought 110 bags of paddy each bag (out of weighing 80 KGs to the appellant’s mill total 3836 on 09.04.2012 for sale and kept the Qtls. of stock in the verandah of the mill and paddy bargaining of rate, meanwhile inspection was conducted and the stock was caught, without hearing request of the claimant.

6Polaki Ramarao,He contended that he has an extent of S/o late DalinaiduAc.4.80 of wet land at Polaki villages 81 Polaki villageand raising paddy crop every year, which (out of Polaki Mandalyields 150 paddy bags every year. He total 3836 brought 81 bags of paddy each bag Qtls. of weighing 80 KGs to the appellant’s mill paddy on 09.04.2012 for sale and kept the stock in the verandah of the mill and bargaining of rate, meanwhile inspection was conducted and the stock was caught, without hearing request of the claimant.

7Tadela Govinda He contended that he has an extent of Rao,Ac.3.00 of wet land at Vedullavalasa, S/o Gowri Naidu,Santhalaxmipuram and Polaki villages Santhalaxmipuram and raising paddy crop every year, which

(v)yields 105 paddy bags every year. He 90 Polaki Mandalbrought 90 bags of paddy each bag (out of 7Crl.Appeal No. 122/2012

Date: 05.02.2014

weighing 80 KGs to the appellant’s mill total 3836 on 09.04.2012 for sale and kept the Qtls. of stock in the verandah of the mill and paddy bargaining of rate, meanwhile inspection was conducted and the stock was caught, without hearing request of the claimant.

After considering the explanation of the appellant herein and his written arguments and the material available on record, the learned

Collector observed that the explanation and the paddy not stated to be excess, were invented for the purpose of benefit of the appellant and that the mediators’ report clearly shows that there was variation of stock with reference to “B” Register on the ground balance and the stock available on the verandah is within the premises of rice mill. It is further observed that the Kharif market season starts from 01.10.2011 to 30.09.2012 whereas the appellant furnished registers commenced from 01.04.2011 to 09.04.2012 and that he ought to have carried forward the levy given to F.C.I. and thus he had not maintained the records properly showing the excess of the levy in the present register.

It is further observed that the value of the seized stock is Rs.41,42,480/- as per the report of the Tahsildar Narasannapeta. Since the Collector found the appellant herein guilt of the charges partly, the impugned order was passed.

5.The appellant filed written arguments.

6.Heard the respondent.

7.Point for consideration is whether the impugned order is sustainable?

8.It is the main contention of the appellant that the Inspecting

Officials erroneously considered the stock of 7 farmers as that of the 8Crl.Appeal No. 122/2012

Date: 05.02.2014

appellant and there will be no variation in the stock if permissible variation at the rate of 6% is considered and further that the registers were properly maintained and levy was also given to the Government, yet a false case was foisted due to political reasons.

9.Even according to the appellant, 729 quintals of paddy was brought by (1) Ybaji Venkatarao, s/o Chinnama Naidu; (2) Muddada

Ramamurty, S/o Appanna; (3) Sasupalli Satyanarayana, S/o Varahala

Naidu; (4) Yabaji Rajagopala Rao, S/o Chinnama Naidu; (5) Thadela

Govinda Rao, S/o Gowri Naidu; (6) Gedela Trinadha Rao, S/o Ramanna and (7) Polaki Ramarao, S/o late Dalinaidu and they have filed claim petitions before the Collector claiming that part of the seized stock belong to them, yet the claims were dismissed by the Collector. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant has not stated any thing about the mediators, out of whom three persons namely (1) Gantyada

Ramamurty (2) Kola Srinivsa Rao and (3) Cheeperu Prathap are independent witnesses and they have nothing to do with the Office of the inspecting officials. The appellant contended that the signatures of the son of the appellant were obtained on blank papers, but the same appears to be not proper explanation, since there is no averment or evidence that these mediators are in any way inimical to him for taking part in preparation of the mediators’ report which goes against his explanation. Therefore, the learned Collector has rightly relied on the mediators’ report. Had these claimants been present, at the time of inspection, their signatures would have been made or taken on the mediators’ report. The record shows that the claims were made on 12.04.2012. Therefore, it appears that it is only an after thought to 9Crl.Appeal No. 122/2012

Date: 05.02.2014

support the case of appellant. Therefore, the Collector has not considered the claims of the claimants. No illegality, irregularity or mala fides are found in the impugned order.

10.To prove that the appellant has properly maintained the registers, there is no iota of evidence, except offering explanation for the sake of supporting the explanation offered. With regard to permissible variation, it is noticed that the variation has been already considered, yet the variation is found in excess of the permissible limits. Hence, no challenge can be raised on this ground. Further, the appellant could not make out any ground to establish that a false case was booked due to political rivalry. Keeping in view that huge quantity of the variation was found in the stock, and the value involved is more, there is no mala fides established, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order either for holding the charges as proved or with regard to the quantum of the amounts ordered to be confiscated. Hence, there are no merits in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order

dated 15.10.2012 in SR No. 25/2012- S.5 passed by the Collector,

Srikakulam.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court, this the 05th day of February 2014.

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam.

1Crl.Appeal No. 122/2012

Date: 05.02.2014

Copy to the Collector, Srikakulam along with L.C. record by R.P.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT SRIKAKULAM

Present: Ms. B.S.Bhanumathi, B.Sc.,LL.M., Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam.

Dated this Friday, the 24 th day of January 2014.

Crl. Appeal No. 113/2012

From what court the :The Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, appeal is preferredRajam. Number of the case in : that courtC.C. No. 121/2010

Number of the appeal:CRL.APPEAL No. 113/2012.

The Name and Jogi Apparao Naidu, S/o late Rama Murty designation of the Naidu, aged 58 years, Hindu, Mandal appellant/accused:Educational Officer (Retired), Regidi Amadalavalasa Mandalam, Srikakulam district, residing at Hospital Road, Palakonda, Palakonda Mandalam. The Name and address of :1. Palavalasa Suresh Kumar, S/o the Complainant/1stLakshmu Naidu, aged 30 years, RespondentHindu, R/o Maruthinagar, 2nd line, working as a Teacher, Dolapeta village of Rajam PS Limits.

2. The state of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, Srikakulam.

The accused is found guilty for The sentence and law :the offence under Section 323 IPC and under which it was is convicted under Section 248 (2) imposed in the lower Cr.P.C. The accused is ordered to be court. released under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act and for keeping good behaviour and conduct on executing bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum for a period of one year. Further, he is ordered to be kept under supervision of District Probation Officer Sri P.Trinadha Rao, for a period of one year during which time he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour and shall not commit any offence failing which the accused shall appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period before the court. guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 506 (ii) and 186 IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C.

2Crl.A. No. 113/2012

Date: 24.01.2014

Whetherconfirmed, Reversed – Appeal is allowed. modified or reversedif In the result, the Criminal Appeal is modified,the allowed and the judgment of conviction modification.and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 323, IPC, dt.12.10.2012 in CC 121/2010 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajam, is set aside. Consequently, the accused is acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 323, IPC.

Date of presentation::09.11.2012

Date of filing:15.11.2012

Notice issued by court to 15.11.2012 appear: Bail bonds if appellant :….. has been let out on bail: Appellant ordered to :20.12.2012 appear Date of hearing:10.01.2014 Date of order:24.01.2014

This appeal coming on 10.01.2014 for final hearing before me and upon perusing the petition of appeal, the record of evidence and the proceedings and upon duly considering the same after hearing the arguments of Sri T.Radhakrishna, Counsel for appellant/accused and of Sri T.Chandrasekhara Rao, Public Prosecutor for the State-2nd Respondent and Sri P.Seethannaidu, Advocate for the 1st Respondent-complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day, I do adjudge and pass the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This is an appeal against the judgment dated 12.10.2012 in C.C.

121/2010 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Rajam.

The appellant is the accused and P.W.1 is the complainant before the trial court.

2.The case of the complainant against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 324, 186, 506 (ii) IPC (read with 34 IPC sic.) is briefly as follows;

The complainant is a Secondary Grade Teacher at Parampeta for 7 years and also the Secretary of District U.T.F. and respectable person in the

Society, whereas the accused was working as M.E.O. and lawless person.

3Crl.A. No. 113/2012

Date: 24.01.2014

There are some ill-feelings, differences and disputes between the complainant and the accused. The accused bore grudge against the complainant. The complainant is the subordinate to the accused. The accused was suspended about 6 months back, on a complaint given by the subordinate staff. On 26.04.2008, the complainant along with M.

Krupanandam went to M.E.O. Office. M. Krupanandam handed over the

Treasury bill book to the accused. At that time, the complainant was writing

S.R. lists. Then the accused questioned the complainant as to why the complainant was visiting the bank on number of occasions and quarreled the complainant. The accused warned the complainant to take disciplinary action against the complainant. The altercation between the complainant and the accused raised. The accused abused the complainant in unparliamentarily language saying useless fellow, lanjakodaka and other abusive words and threw away the S.R.record on the table of the accused.

The accused caught hold filt of the complainant and threatened dire consequences to kill him. The accused obstructed the legitimate discharging of the duties by the complainant. Immediately, the complainant reported the matter to the police of Regidi Amadalavalasa. The Crime No.44 of 2008 was registered at 05.30 PM and issued a receipt. As the complainant received multiple injuries, the police sent the complainant to M.L.C., Rajam.

The police did not initiate against the accused. Hence, this complaint is filed by the complainant.

3.The complainant himself examined as P.W.1 and also P.W.2 to P.W.7 on his behalf and filed Ex.P.1 wound certificate. The accused did not lead any evidence.

4.After hearing both sides, the trial court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323, IPC and found not guilty for the 4Crl.A. No. 113/2012

Date: 24.01.2014

offence punishable under Sections 353, 506 (ii) and 186, IPC and applied the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and ordered to be released under the said provision and for keeping good behaviour and conduct on executing bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum for a period of one year. The accused was further ordered to be kept under supervision of District Probation Officer Sri P.Trinadha Rao, for a period of one year during which time he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour and shall not commit any offence failing which the accused shall appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period before Judicial

Magistrate of 1st Class, Rajam.

4.Having aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred the present appeal.

5.Heard both sides.

6. Points for consideration are :

(1) Whether the complainant has made out a case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 323, IPC?

(2)Whether the impugned judgment is sustainable under law and on facts?

7.The complainant cited M. Krupanandam (P.W.7), M. Sankara Rao (L.W.2), G. Appalagopalam (L.W.3), Porapu Ramu, S/o Thavitinaidu (P.W.2) and Meesala Ramakrishna (L.W.5) as witnesses on his behalf, when he filed the complaint. However, he did not choose to examine M. Sankara Rao, G.

Appalagopalam and Meesala Ramakrishna and on the other he examined

Merugula Balakrishna (P.W.2), Galla Vijaya (P.W.4) and Dr. M. Koteswara Rao (PW.6) , though they were not cited as witnesses in the complaint. But the fact that he was sent to M.L.C., Rajam by the police on his submitting the complaint as he received simple injuries, is mentioned in the complaint itself.

5Crl.A. No. 113/2012

Date: 24.01.2014

P.W.5 is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, who received the complaint from the complainant and therefore he was examined as a witness.

8.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a false case was foisted by the complainant as a counter blast to the complaint of the accused against the complainant herein for which C.C.234/2008 was registered. He further submitted that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and that the witnesses who supported P.W.1 are inimical to the accused and are supports of P.W.1 and therefore their evidence cannot be treated as the evidence of independent witnesses. He further submitted that even the complainant himself is inimical to the accused and bore grudge and as such his evidence is also not trustworthy. He further submitted that the injuries on the complainant would be caused by fall on the road as admitted by the Doctor and that there are no visible injuries on the body of P.W.1 which is not possible if he was beaten with a chair as alleged. He further submitted that the present case is a counter blast case filed by the accused.

Therefore, he urged to allow the appeal and acquit the appellant/accused.

9The learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the 2nd respondent supported the case of complainant and impugned judgment and the reasons in support of it given by the trial court.

10.As can be seen from the evidence, it is pertinent to mention that the presence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 was not mentioned by the complainant either in his complaint or his evidence in chief examination as the eye witnesses to the incident. According to P.W.1, the accused along with P.W.7 were in one room, when he went there on a word sent by the accused through G. Appalagopalam (who was not examined as a witness). The further witnesses mentioned by P.W.1 in his evidence in chief-examination are Yendava Ramakrishna and Karanam Krishna Murty who allegedly 6Crl.A. No. 113/2012

Date: 24.01.2014

intervened and rescued the complainant from the accused. But they were also not examined by the complainant without assigning any reason. Of course, they were also not referred in the complaint nor they were cited as witnesses.

11.P.W.2 did not support the complainant about the accused beating the complainant, whoever, he corroborated P.W.1 to the extent that there was a dispute between P.W.1 and the accused on 276.04.2008 at about 05.00 PM at M.D.O. Office. As is already recorded, except citing him as L.W.4 in the complaint and examining him as PW.2, there is no reference to his presence at the time of occurrence, in the complaint or the evidence of P.W.1, though

P.W.1 preferred to cite P.W.2 as an eye witness to the incident. Moreover,

P.W.2 did not support P.W1 in support of ingredients constituting the offence punishable under Section 323, I.P.C.

12.P.W.3 corroborated P.W.1 to the fact that accused beat P.W.1 with a chair on his right hand. P.W.3 is a press reporter. He admitted that that

P.W.1 is his close friend. Merely because there is friendship, the evidence of

PW.3 need not be suspected, but must be closely scrutinized to rely on the same. As already recorded, there is no reason for the complainant to show

P.W.3 as list of witness in the complaint or in the facts mentioned in the complaint about his presence there or in his evidence in chief examination, yet he introduced P.W.3 as a witness to corroborate him. Therefore, there is strength in the contention of the appellant that P.W.3 is a planted witness. It is pertinent to mention that when there are two view possible from the material placed before a court, the views one which is favourable to the accused shall be taken into consideration. As such, the evidence of P.W.3 does not inspire confidence that he was present and witnessed the incident.

7Crl.A. No. 113/2012

Date: 24.01.2014

13.P.W.4 was examined in chief partly corroborating P.W.1 regarding the occurrence, however, she was not examined in cross though the cross- examination was deferred. The reasons are not recorded as to what happened to P.W.4 for not putting the witness for cross-examination. Hence, her evidence cannot be considered.

14.Nextly, it is the evidence of P.W.7 who is allegedly another eye witness to the incident. He corroborated P.W.1 even on material aspects with reference to the offence punishable under Section 323, I.P.C. However, his evidence must be scrutinized carefully as he has enmity with the accused as can be culled out from the admissions in his cross-examination. P.W.7 admitted that the accused gave a report against him stating that he had issued a cheque to one Ch. Murali without obtaining sanction from the concerned for his salary. He further admitted that the accused gave a report against P.W.7 that P.W.7 had misappropriated the contingent funds and an enquiry was conducted by the Joint Director against P.W.7 and the Regional

Joint Director addressed a letter to the D.E.O. about the misappropriation of the funds and an increment was stopped on the above report. P.W.7 says that besides the accused, himself and P.W1 there was Gopalarao, another teacher were present at the scene of offence. For the reasons best known to the complainant, Gopala Rao was not examined nor was he cited as a witness. In view of all the admissions of PW.7 noted above, there is every possibility for this witness to speak against the accused. Therefore, it is not prudent to rely on his evidence to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1, in the absence of any other credible evidence. But there is no other independent witness examined by the complainant.

15.It is pertinent to mention that in view of the disputes and differences between the accused and the complainant and the pendency of the counter 8Crl.A. No. 113/2012

Date: 24.01.2014

case between the same parties in C.C. 234/2008, the sole testimony of P.W.1 is not enough to safely conclude the guilty of the accused.

16.Of course, P.W.6, the doctor, deposed that he had examined P.W.1 on 26.04.2008 at 09.00 PM and found the following injuries:

(1) Pain and tenderness over right chest at lower limb; (2) Pain and tenderness over right shoulder; (3) Pain around the neck region.

The complaining pain is a statement by the patient. Tenderness was recorded. Merely basing on the evidence of P.W.6, in the absence of any other credible and trustworthy evidence of P.W.1 himself and also of the other witnesses, the complainant cannot establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Since the reasons have already been recorded in the preceding discussion on this aspect, it is found that there is no such decree of credible evidence as is required to prove the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt in the present case. Therefore, the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and there is error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 323, I.P.C.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC, is liable to be set aside.

17.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 323, IPC, dt.12.10.2012 in CC 121/2010 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Rajam, is set aside. Consequently, the accused is acquitted of

the charge for the offence punishable under Section 323, IPC.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 24th day of January 2014.

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam.

9Crl.A. No. 113/2012

Date: 24.01.2014

Copy to the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Rajam along with L.C.record by

RP.

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT SRIKAKULAM

Present:- Ms. B.S. Bhanumathi, B.Sc., LL.M.,

Prl.District & Sessions Judge,

Srikakulam.

Dated this Tuesday the 28 th day of January 2014.

Crl.Appeal No. 123/2012

From what court the appeal is :The District Collector, Srikakulam. preferred.

Number of the case in that :S.R. No.24/2012- S.5, dt.15.10.2012 court

Number of the appeal: CRL. APPEAL No. 123/2012 The Name and designation of Panchireddi Satyanarayana, S/o the appellant:Venkati, Hindu, aged 35years, Velama by caste, business, Proprietor: Jagganna ModernRiceMill,Komarthi, Narasannapeta Mandal, Srikakulam district.

The law and sentence under :The Collector, Srikakulam passed an which it was imposed in the order dt. 15.10.2012 order holding that lower court.the respondent is found guilty of charges partly and ordered confiscation of 10% of the value of the seized stock and the amount to be deposited in Civil Deposits only and release the remaining stock or its value to the respondent. Whether confirmed, modified Confirmed – Appeal dismissed. or reversed if modified, the modification. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 15.10.2012 in SR No. 24/2012- S.5 passed by the Collector, Srikakulam.

Date of presentation::08.11.2012

Date of filing:18.12.2012

Notice issued by court to 18.12.2012 appear: Bail bonds if appellant has :….. been let out on bail: Appellant ordered to appear:24.01.2013

Date of hearing:09.01.2014

Date of order:28.01.2014 2Crl.Appeal No. 123/2012

Date: 28.01.2014

This appeal coming on 09.01.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri C. Narasimhamurty, Advocate for the appellant and of Sri T. Chadra sekhara Rao, Public Prosecutor for State-Respondent having heard both sides and upon perusing the petition appeal and the proceedings and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court do adjudge and pass the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This is an appeal preferred against the order dated 15.10.2012 in SR

No. 24/2012- S.5 of the Collector, Srikakulam, finding the appellant guilty of charges partly and ordered confiscation of 10% of the value of the seized stock and the amount to be deposited in Civil Deposits.

2.The case against the appellant is briefly as follows:

On receipt of reliable information that Sri Jagganna, MRM, Komarthi village, Narasannapeta Mandal was indulging in clandestine business with rice, the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Srikakulam, Deputy

Superintendent of Police, V & E Department, have surprised Jagganna MRM on 09.04.2012 at about 03.00 PM along with Deputy Tahsildar,

Narasannapeta in the presence of mediators. Panchireddi Satyanarayana, proprietor of the rice mill, was available in the premises at the time of inspection. On verification of the stock and registers, the following variation was found.

S.No.CommoditStocks asSalesStocks VariatioValue of the yper‘B’ available nstock in Rs. registeron ground 1Paddy12101.60 10969.01132.00 1,17,92,320.0 qtls 0qtls 0 (15127 Qtls, 1415 bags @ bags bags @ 80 Kgs)1371280 Kgs 2Rice416.75 270.00 792 qtls646 15,08,760.00 qtlsqtls.QTLS 3Broken 8 qtls (32 6qtls 2 qtls6,000.00 ricebags)(24 bags) 4Husk16 bags016 bags`0 Total:1,33,07,080.0 3Crl.Appeal No. 123/2012

Date: 28.01.2014

0 4Crl.Appeal No. 123/2012

Date: 28.01.2014

The variation is more than 6% of the permissible variation liable under clause 18 (2) (c) of the Control Order. Thereby, the Tahsildar,

Narasannapeta reported the same alleging that the appellant was not doing business in a fair manner but doing clandestine business by not maintaining true and correct accounts in violation of APSCD (Licensing, storage and

Regulation) Order 2008. It is further alleged that the Miller delivered only 17510 quintals of rice as levied to FCI from 01.04.2012 to 09.04.2012. It is also alleged that the appellant did not maintain A & B registers properly indicating paddy milled and rice delivered from levy up to 09.04.2012 as required under Clause 16 A.P.Rice Procurement (levy) order 1984 and did not deliver the balance quantity of rice of 38 quintals of rice as levy as required under Clause 3, 16 of A.P.Rice Procurement (Levy) Order 1984. The

Inspecting Team seized the available stock of paddy of 10969.60 quintals (13732 bags), rice of 792 bags and broken rice of 6 quintals and handed over the same to Sri K. Parameswara Rao, Kodanda Rama Rice Mill, Devadi village, Narasannapeta Mandal for safe custody.

After framing the following charges against the appellant, the enquiry was held, after receiving explanation and written arguments.

Charge No.1: Respondent is not doing business in a fair manner and doing clandestine business by not maintaining true and correct accounts in violation of procurement of APSCD (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order 2008. The variation i.e., shortage in stock of 1132.00 qtls of paddy, excess stock of 646 qtls of rice, shortage of 2 qtls of broken rice and shortage of 16 bags of Husk with that of book balances is beyond the 6% permissible variation allowable under Clause 18(2) C of the Control Order. On verification of B. Register, it was found that the miller so far delivered only 17510 qtls (1.12.2011 to 9.4.2012) of rice as levy to the FCI.

5Crl.Appeal No. 123/2012

Date: 28.01.2014

Charge No.2:The respondent has not maintained A & B registers properly indicating paddy milled rice delivered and levy up to 9.4.2012 as required under clause 16 of A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order 1984. The respondent has also not delivered the balance quantity of rice 38 qtls as levy as required under Clause 16 of AP Rice Procurement (Levy) Order 1984.

The appellant offered explanation that he was not doing clandestine business and that the officials visited the rice mill on 09.04.2012 and seized the available stock of 13.712 bags of paddy each weighing 80 Kgs, 792 quintals of rice and 6 quintals of broken rice and that the officials contravened the provisions of Essential Commodities Act. It is submitted by the appellant that the variation of the stock alleged by the officials is due to milling process and the paddy was made out as rice of 648 quintals and the said paddy and rice was shown as (-) and (+) respectively, but even then the

Officials did not hear the appellant and booked a false case. The appellant submitted that he has given very good levy to the government and he is ready to give some more levy and for that purpose only stock was kept in the mill. It is further submitted that the Officials verified the records up to

March 2012 but intentionally did not verify the records commencing from 01.04.2012 and if such records were considered, there would not have been any variation. It is submitted that the appellant is doing business by investing huge amounts and taking loans and they have to pay the amounts to farmers from whom they purchased the paddy. The appellant urged to accept the explanation and drop further proceedings.

The seized stock is valued at Rs.1,33,07,080-00, after going through the explanation offered and the arguments submitted, the charges were found to be proved and thereby the impugned order was passed.

6Crl.Appeal No. 123/2012

Date: 28.01.2014

3.Having aggrieved by the same, the present appeal was filed. Written arguments were submitted by the appellant on 22.01.2014. Since the matter was identified for early disposal and in spite of conditional order, the appellant did not get ready for submitting oral or written arguments after giving ample time, this court proceeded to decide the matter on 09.01.2014 for judgment on 28.01.2014. Thereafter, written arguments were submitted by the appellant, since the advocates are on strike. To give the appellant a fair opportunity, written arguments are also perused, though they were filed in the office subsequent to 09.01.2014. In fact written arguments are substantially the same as in the explanation offered before the Collector and the grounds of appeal. Hence, no prejudice would be caused to either party if written arguments are referred in this judgment.

4.Heard the respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted to pass order on merits.

5.Point for consideration is whether the impugned order is sustainable?

6.According to the appellant, registers were properly maintained and there is no proper counting and weighing the stock at the time of inspection and that the Inspecting officials have not properly considered the registers maintained from 01.04.2012 to 09.04.2012. It is also contended that this false case was foisted since the appellant was supporting the candidate for

YSR Congress Party as by that time midterm poll for Narasannapeta constituency was being conducted. In addition to that, with regard to the quantum of penalty imposed, it was submitted that in the ordinary course the District Collector ordered confiscation of 5% of the value of the seized stock in stead of 10% as imposed in the present case. With regard to levy to

F.C.I, the appellant contends that the stock was made ready for levying to

F.C.I. and the same was not considered.

7Crl.Appeal No. 123/2012

Date: 28.01.2014

7.There is no contention of the appellant that the mediators in any way inimical to him. Thus, there is no reason not consider the mediators report to substantiate the weighments and the measurements of the counting of bags. That apart, in the explanation itself, the variation of quantity of the stock found by the inspecting officials was admitted. Hence, the appellant cannot contend on this ground.

8To prove that the appellant has properly maintained the registers, there is no iota of evidence, except offering explanation for the sake of supporting the explanation offered. On the other hand, the undisputed mediators report would show that the registers which the appellant alleged to have maintained have not been shown. Therefore, it is clear that proper registers were not maintained.

9.With regard to the permissible variation, it is noticed that the variation has been already considered, yet the variation is found in excess of the permissible limits. Hence, no challenge can be raised on this ground.

10.Similarly, the appellant could not make out any ground to establish that a false case was booked due to political rivalry.

11.Similarly, the appellant could not show that the District Collector had ordered confiscation of 5% of the value of the seized stock in the rest of the cases, whereas 10% confiscation of the value of seized stock in the present case. Moreover, there is no fixed scale in this regard, in the facts and circumstances of each case, the amount of value ordered to be confiscated shall be examined and a blanket rule cannot be applied. In the present case, since the variation is very huge quantity and the value involved is more, 8Crl.Appeal No. 123/2012

Date: 28.01.2014

there is no mala fides established, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order either for holding the charges as proved or with regard to the quantum of the amounts ordered to be confiscated. Hence, there are no merits in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 15.10.2012 in SR No. 24/2012- S.5 passed by the Collector, Srikakulam.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of January 2014.

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam.

Copy to the Collector, Srikakulam along with L.C. record by R.P.

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT SRIKAKULAM

Present:- Ms. B.S. Bhanumathi, B.Sc., LL.M., Prl.District & Sessions Judge,

Srikakulam.

Dated this Thursday the 23 rd day of January 2014.

Crl.Appeal No. 129/2012

From what court the appeal is :The District Collector, Srikakulam. preferred.

Number of the case in that :S.R. No.102/2012- S.5, dt.18.12.2012 court

Number of the appeal: CRL. APPEAL No. 129/2012 The Name and designation of Sunkari Laxmana Rao, s/o late Appanna, the appellant:Hindu, aged 78 years, Proprietor of Sri Balaji Modern Rice Mill, Annavaram village,PalakondaMandalam, Srikakulam district

The law and sentence under :The Collector, Srikakulam passed an which it was imposed in the order dt. 18.12.2012 order holding that lower court.the respondent is found guilty of charge and ordered confiscation of the value equivalent to the differential cost Rs.1,55,800/- of stock notice while inspecting the scheduled premises.

Whether confirmed, modified Confirmed – Appeal dismissed. or reversed if modified, the modification. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 18.12.2012 in SR No. 102/2012- S.5 passed by the Collector, Srikakulam.

Date of presentation::24.12.2012

Date of filing:26.12.2012

Notice issued by court to 26.12.2012 appear: Bail bonds if appellant has :….. been let out on bail: Appellant ordered to appear:17.01.2013

Date of hearing:09.01.2014

Date of order:23.01.2014 2Crl.Appeal 129/2012

Date:23.01.2014

This appeal coming on 09.01.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y. Muralimohana Rao, Advocate for the appellant and of Sri T. Chadra sekhara Rao, Public Prosecutor for State-Respondent having heard both sides and upon perusing the petition appeal and the proceedings and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court do adjudge and pass the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This is an appeal preferred against the order dated 18.12.2012 in SR

No. 102/2012- S.5 of the Collector, Srikakulam, by which confiscation of the value equivalent to the differential cost Rs.1,55,800/- of stock notice while inspecting the scheduled premises.

2.The case against the appellant is briefly as follows:

On 05.12.2012 at about 01.15 PM, the District Supply Officer along with the Tahsildar, Palakonda, Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Palakonda and the mediators surprised Sri Balaji Modern Rice Mill, Annavaram village,

Palakonda Mandal. SriSunkari Sudhakar, S/o Laxmanarao, Partner of the rice mill was present by then in the rice mill of the appellant. On verification of the stock register, the following was found:

S.NoCommodityQuantity as Physical VariationValueof .perB balancethe stock in RegisterRs. 1Paddy – A1120 Qtls1120 Qtls--14,33,600/- Grade 2Paddy493.60 Qtls496.60 Qtls--6,17,000/- Common Total1613.60 Qtls1613.60 --20,50,600/- Qtls 3Rice – A 61.25 Qtls114.25 Qtls53.00 Qtls3,31,325/- Grade 4Broken rice3.00 Qtls3.00 Qtls2.100/- TOTAL23,84,025/-

It was reported by the District Supply Officer that the appellant was not doing business in a fair manner and maintaining the proper accounts and thus violated the provisions of APSCD (Licensing, Storage and Regulation)

Order 2008. It is further alleged that the difference in the stock is above the 3Crl.Appeal 129/2012

Date:23.01.2014

permissible variation of 6% allowable under clause 11 & 13 (2) of the

APPSCD (LS & R) Control Order 2008. It is further alleged that the appellant has not delivered the balance quantity of rice 54.449 MTS of rice as required under Clause 3, 16 of A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) order 1984. It is claimed that the appellant has prima facie contravened Clauses 11 and 18 (2) of the

APPSCD (LS & R) Control Order 2008 and conditions 3, 4 and 11 of B-Form

Licence and Clause 7(a)(1), 9 and 16 of A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) order 1984 by resorting improper maintenance of the records/stocks hoarding huge stocks of paddy and rice and delivering mill levy to the government. As the stock is subject to be damage and decolouring, the District Supply

Officer, Srikakulam requested to pass order for interim disposal and also to take action for consideration of the seized stocks to the government.

3.When the case came up for hearing on 14.12.2012, the son of appellant submitted explanation that the appellant is licenced rice miller engaged in the buss of rice milling and trading etc., under valid License

No.228/2008. With regard to the variation due to excess stock of 53 quintals of rice and 3 quintals of broken rice, it was submitted that the same being made ready for packing at the time of inspection and the stock is yet to be recorded in the stock register after compliance of the weighments. The appellant disputed any attempt on his part to indulge in any illegal and clandestine business. It was also submitted that previously he had given more levy to F.C.I. and in future also he would give more levy to F.C.I. and that the balance of levy was not delivered due to non-availability of space at

FCI godowns. It was also submitted that the appellant was sick due to lungs problem and undergoing treatment at Visakhapatnam and he was aged 78 years and due to inexperience of the son of the appellant as the clerk of the mill was not attending the duties regularly and hence the stock registers 4Crl.Appeal 129/2012

Date:23.01.2014

were not updated. It was requested to drop further proceedings on humanitarian grounds.

4.After hearing both parties and perusing the record, the learned

Collector was not satisfied with the explanation offered and found the appellant guilty of the charges and ordered confiscation of the value equivalent to the differential cost Rs.1,55,800/- of stock notice while inspecting the scheduled premises.

5.Having aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred on the ground that the Collector has not properly appreciated the explanation offered by the appellant and that the appellant has been running the rice mill and maintaining the records properly without any blemish or remarks from any public or officials at any point of time and that he has never violated any provisions of law. He reiterated the grounds urged in the explanation. It is also stated in the grounds of appeal that there is no mention in the mediators report, the details of unpacked rice, packed rice and used rice spread on the ground of mill and so also 3 quintals of broken rice which clearly establish that the counting of the rice was not properly made but approximately noted the alleged excess of 53 quintals of rice and 3 quintals of broken rice without weighing the same. It is further stated that there are interpolations in the column at Page No.2 of the alleged statement recorded of his son Sunkari Sudhakar, s/o the appellant.

6.While the matter has come up for hearing in the appeal, though more than enough opportunity is given for hearing, the appellant has not chosen to advance oral or written arguments. Of course, the Advocates have been on strike for the past several months. Since the matter has been identified 5Crl.Appeal 129/2012

Date:23.01.2014

for early disposal and already enough opportunity was given, a conditional order was passed on 31.12.2013 directing the appellant to file written arguments or to submit oral arguments or else the next step follows. Even then on 09.01.2014, the appellant did not turn up, even to state the reason why he was not unable to comply the conditional order. There was no kind of any representation. Under these circumstances, this court decided to dispose of the appeal on merits basing on the available record.

7.Point for consideration is whether the impugned order under appeal is liable to be set aside as prayed for?

8.As can be seen from the explanation offered, there seems to be no legally sustainable material in support of the explanation offered nor is there any ground to find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Collector. The explanation is merely for the sake of offering an explanation. The grounds alleged in the appeal about the interpolation and incorrect weighments, were not emphasized by the appellant before the collector. Nor do they have any strength from the record. Moreover, the quantum of the amount awarded for confiscation is not on high side, but it is proportionate to the illegality found in the enquiry. Under these circumstances, there is no ground in the appeal to interfere in the impugned order.

9In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 18.12.2012 in SR No. 102/2012- S.5 passed by the Collector, Srikakulam.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of January 2014.

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam.

6Crl.Appeal 129/2012

Date:23.01.2014

Copy to the Collector, Srikakulam along with L.C. record by R.P.