Sri. G. Gopala Krishna Murthy

ORIGINAL

“gl

INTHECOURTOFTHEPRINCIPALDISTRICTJUDGE,ADILABAD

Present: SriG.GopalaKrishnaMurthy,

PRINCIPALDISTRICTJUDGE,

ADILABAD

TUESDAYTHE24TMDAYOFNOVEMBER20i5

ELECTIONO.P.NO.242OF204

Between:

SuraLaxmiW/O.Narsimulu, Age:24years,Occ:Household R/O.H.No.4-8-72/,Waddercolony,

AdilabaddistrictनममममPETITIONER

//AND//

4)Mohd.ShamimSulthana,W/O.MOhd.Masood, Ageabout42years,Occ:Household R/O.H.No.4-8-848,Waddercolony,Adilabaddistrict

2)AdilabadMunicipalCouncil RepresentedbyitsCommissioner, OfficeoftheMunicipalCouncil,AdilabadniesRESPONDENTS

Thispetitioncomingonbeforemeforfinalhearingon4.0.2045inthepresence ofSriC.SudhakarReddy,AdvocateforthepetitionerandSriMd.Ghouse,Advocate forthefirstrespondentandSriB.HanumanthRao,Advocateforthesecond respondentandonhearingbothsidesandthematterhavingstoodoverfor considerationtillthisdaythiscourtmadethefollowing:

JUBGMENT

4)Thisisapetitionfiledbythesolepetitionerundersection7oftheAndhra

PradeshMunicipalityAct,965withaprayertodisqualifythefirstrespondent

MohammedShameemSulthanaasofficemember/councilorforthewardno.24of

Adilabadmunicipalityandtodeclarethepetitioneraselectedforthepostoftheoffice member/councilorforthewardno.24ofAdilabadMunicipalityandforawardingcosts.

2)ThebriefavermentsofthepetitionarethattheAndhraPradeshStateElection a“CommissionorderedtoconductelectionsforAdilabadMunicipalityforthepostsof

WardCouncilors,ChairmanandVice-ChairmanofAdilabadmunicipalityandappointed

the—तालofAdilabadMunicipality(secondrespondent)aselectionofficerand

33

-wy *PageIofI0

RIGINAL,

ElectionO.P.No.242of20I4हि Onthefileofthe>

PrincipalDistrictJudge,Adilabad

Page2of 0¢ inpursuanceofthesamethesecondrespondentissuedelectionnotificationfor conductingelectionofCouncilorforwardno.24also.Thepetitionerandthefirst respondentfiledtheirnominationsalongwithfiveothercandidates,Thepetitioner contestedasmemberofBharathiyaJanataParty(BJP)withlotussymbolandthe secondrespondentcontestedasMIMpartycandidatewiththesymbolofkite.After completingtheelectionscountingwasconductedoni2.05.2024,inwhichtheelection officerdeclaredthatthefirstrespondentsecured45votesandthepetitioner secured438votesanddeclaredthefirstrespondentaselectedwithamarginof43 votesandthepetitionerwassecondtoher.

3)Thecontentionofthepetitioneristhattheelectionofthefirstrespondentis voidandillegalandcontrarytotheprovisionsofElectionLawsasperSection43ofthe

PanchayathrajAct994as thefirstrespondentishavingmorethantwochildrenborn after30.05.994andthereforeshecannotcontestevenintheelectionsandthefirst respondenthassuppressedthefactandcontestedintheelectionsbyfiling nominations.Shefurtherpleadedthatshegavewritteninformationtothesecond respondenton.06.204buthehasnotdisqualifiedthefirstrespondentand thereforesheapproachedthecourtforthereliefsoughtforinthepetition.

4)Thefirstrespondentfiledcounteradmittingthefactsstatedinparano.2 mentionedabovebutdeniedthatshehas contravened theprovisionsofSection3of

PanchayathrajActandcontendedthatsheisnotliablefordisqualificationascouncilor ofwardno.24ofAdilabadmunicipalcounselandprayedfordismissalofthesame.

5)Thesecondrespondentfiledcounterstatingthatthefirstrespondent esubmitteddeclarationbeforetheElectionOfficerthatsheisnotdisqualifiedfor १contestingtheyelectionofwardmemberbysuppressingthefactthatsheishavingmore *पारित

thantwochildkenafter3.05.995andnosuchobjectionwasfiledagainstthe

respondent nolat the time ofscrutiny andthe ElectionOfficerisnotaware of the %

ORIGINAL

ElectionO.P.No.242of20i4

Onthefileoftheeejm

wt

PrincipalDistrictJudge,Adilabad

Page३०१0 factthatthefirstrespondentishavingthreechildren,amongwhomtwochildrenwere bornaftercutoffdateandthepetitionerhastoprovethecorrectnessofthecontents ofthepetitionandthatbecauseofnotfilingobjectionbyanyoneofthecontestants thesecondrespondentisunawareofthefactandthereforeappropriateordersmaybe passedbythecourt.

6)Onthebasisoftheabovepleadingsthefollowingissuesweresettledfortrial:

.Whetherthefirstrespondenthassuppressedanyfactsinher affidavitatthetimeoffilingofnomination?

2.Whetherthecertificatesfiledbythepetitionerinrespectofthe childrenoftherespondentno.taretrueandcorrectandifso, whethertherespondent॥0.]hascontravenedanyoftheprovisionsof

Section3ofthePanchayathRajActandtherebysheisliablefor disqualification?

7)DuringtrialPWs403areexaminedandExs.A.ltoA.8andExs.X.ltoX.7are markedonbehalfofthepetitioner.Nooralordocumentaryevidenceisadducedon behalfoftherespondents.

ISSUE७०.:-

8)Thepetitionerherselfisexaminedas7७...PW.2istheHeadmasterofSri

VenkateshwaraVidyaMandirofBhoktapur,Adilabadandheproducedtherelevantpage intheregisterofAdmissionsmaintainedbytheschoolrelatingtoMd.NaveethandMd.

RohithsonsofMd.Masoodandtheirdatesofbirthsas04.07.994and49,0,॥995.

Ex.X.ltoX.4aretherelevantdocumentsrelatingtoMd.NaveethandMd.Rohith.

Exs.A.6and4.7arealsobonafidecertificatesofthesetwoboysissuedbytheschool ofPW.2.PW.3isworkingasteacherinGovernmentGirlsHighSchoolBhukthapurof “Adilabadandheproducedtheoriginaladmissionregisteroftheschoolandaccordingto

it.SimranThabassumD/O.Md.MasoodwasadmittedinClassVIon9.06.2008and

Ex.A.8isthebonafideandconductcertificateissuedbytheschoolinfavourofSimran

Thabassum.AsperEx.A.8thedateofbirthofSimranThabassumwas27.06.997.

ORIGINAL

ElectionO.P.No.242of20I4 Onthefileofthe“

PrincipalDistrictJudge,Adilabad

Page4of0कु

9)ThefirstrespondentisthewifeofMd.Masood.Thefirstrespondentisnot denyingthefactofMd.Naveeth,Md.RohithandSimranThabassumasherchildren thoughinthecross-examinationitwassuggestedthatthedocumentsandtheentries thereinarenotcorrect.Thedatesofbirthsofthethreechildrenare04.07.994, 9..995and28.06.I997,whichareprovedthroughtheschoolrecordsandtheyare thechildrenofthefirstrespondentandMd.Masood.Therefore,itisverymuchclear thatthefirstrespondentishavingmorethantwochildrenbornafter30.05.994by thedateoffilinghernomination.

0)Itisinthecounterofthesecondrespondentthatthefirstrespondentdidnot statesuchfactinherdeclarationandthatthefirstrespondenthassuppressedthe factindeclarationgivenbyherwhilefilingnominationandthereforetherewasnofault onthepartofthesecondrespondentinacceptingnomination.Itisverymuchclear fromthepleadingsitselfthattherespondentsand2areadmittingthefactthatthe firstrespondentwashavingmorethantwochildrenborntoherafter30.05.994and thereforesheisnotqualifiedtocontestintheelections.

il)Section3(B)ofAndhraPradeshMunicipalitiesAct984readsasfollows:

“Apersonhavingmorethantwochildrenshallbedisqualifiedfor electionorforcontinuingasmember: Providedthatthebirthwithinoneyearfromthedateofcommencement ofthe AndhraPradeshMunicipalLaws(SecondAmendment)Act,994 (hereinafterinthisSectionreferredasthedateofsuch commencement)ofanadditionalchildshallnotbetakeninto considerationforthepurposeofthissection: Providedfurtherthatapersonhavingmorethantwochildren(excluding thechildifanybornwithinoneyearfromthedateofsuch commencement)shallnotbedisqualifiedunderthissectionfor solong ५,०6७

"65 the numberofchildrenhehadon the date of suchcommencement

doesnotincrease:

4|

4

od

ORyhL

2

ElectionO.P.No.242of20I4 Onthefileofthe

PrincipalDistrictJudge,Adilabad

Page5of40

ProvidedalsothattheGovernmentmaydirectthatthedisqualification inthissectionshallnotapplyinrespectofpersonforreasontobe recordedinwriting."

Therefore,itisverymuchclearthatapersonhavingmorethantwochildren,excluding thechildifanybornwithinoneyearfromthedateofsuchcommencementshallnotbe disqualifiedunderthissectionforsolongasthenumberofchildrenhehadonthedate ofsuchcommencementdoesnotincrease.ProvidedalsothattheGovernmentmay directthatthedisqualificationinthissectionshallnotapplyinrespectofpersonfor reasonstoberecordedinwriting.

2)Theavermentsofthecounterofthesecondrespondentdisclosethatsuchfact wassuppressedbythefirstrespondentatthetimeoffilingnominationandalsodidnot mentioninthedeclarationandthereforethepetitionercouldestablishthefactthat thefirstrespondenthassuppressedthefactinheraffidavitatthetimeoffiling nominationwithoutdisclosingthefactthatshehadmorethantwochildrenbornafter 30.05.994.Issueno.lisansweredinfavourofthepetitioner.

ISSUENO.2:

3)Thereisnodisputewithregardtothefactthatthecertificatesfiledbythe petitionerwereprovedthroughtheevidenceofPWs2and3andtheyrelatetothe childrenofthefirstrespondentandherhusbandMasood.Thelearnedcounselforthe firstrespondenthasvehementlycontendedthatthisapplicationitselfisnot maintainableundersection47ofAndhraPradeshMunicipalitiesAct.Heisattacking theapplicationtechnicallybutnotonfactualside.

4)—Section47oftheAndhraPradeshMunicipalitiesAct,965readsasfollows:

“DistrictJudgetodecidequestionsofdisqualificationsofcouncilors:

enim9gyany¥.(!)Whereanallegationismadebyanyvoterorauthoritytothe at.ies (Commissioner)inwritingthatanypersonwhoiselectedasa ‘councilorhasnotqualifiedorhasbecomedisqualifiedundersection $.

3;section4,section5orsection9andthe(Commissioner)has

givenintimationofsuchallegationtothecouncilorandsuch

|ORIGINAL

ElectionO.P.No.242of20I4 Onthefileofthe

PrincipalDistrictJudge,Adilabad

Page6of404 councilordisputesthecorrectnessoftheallegationsomadeor whereanycouncilorhimselfentertainsanydoubtwhetherornothe hasbecomedisqualifiedunderanyofthosesections,

(a)suchcouncilororanyothercouncilormay,withinaperiodoftwo monthsfromthedateonwhichsuchintimationisgivenordoubtis entertained,asthecasemaybe,and

(b)theCommissionershall,eitheronthedirectionofthecouncilor withtheapprovaloftheGovernmentifnosuchdirectionisgiven withinaperiodoftwomonthsfromthedateofplacingofthe matterbytheCommissionerbeforethecouncil, ApplyforadecisiontotheDistrictJudgeofthedistrictinwhich themunicipalityissituated. (2)ThesaidJudge,aftermakingsuchinquiryashedeems necessary,shalldeterminewhetherornotsuchpersonis disqualifiedandhisdecisionshallbefinal. (3)Pendingsuchdecision,thecouncilorshallbeentitledtoactasif hewasnotdisqualified.”

5)Thecontentionofthelearnedcounselforthefirstrespondentisthatifany voterorauthoritymakesanapplicationtotheCommissionerinwritingthatanyperson whoiselectedascouncilorhasnotqualifiedorhasbecomedisqualifiedundersections 3,4,45or9,thecommissionershallgiveintimationofsuchallegationtothe councilorandsuchcouncilordisputesthecorrectness.

6)|Areadingofsection7oftheActmakesitclearthatanypersonwhoispleading disqualificationofthecouncilorundersections3to 45and9shouldgiveanintimation tothecommissionerandifthecouncilordisputessuch correctnessorif thecouncilor himselfentertainsanydoubtwhether ornot hehasbecomedisqualifiedsuchcouncilor oranyothercouncilormaywithinaperiodoftwomonthsfromthedateofsuch

पं]andthecommissionereitheronthedirectionofthecouncilorwiththe

Ae

5.dys ‘approvalofagpeGovernmentif no suchdirectionisgivenwithina period of twomonths applyfor a decisionto theDistrictJudgeofthe districtin which the Municipalityis हैsituated.

ORIGINAL

ElectionO.P.No.242of2044८al

Onthefileofthe

PrincipalDistrictJudge,Adilabad

Page7of 40

7)Thecontentionofthelearnedcounselforthefirstrespondentisthat admittedlyapplicationwasgiventotheCommissionerbythepetitionerhereinstating thedisqualificationofthefirstrespondentforhavingmorethantwochildrenon .06.20I4butwhereasthisapplicationwasfiledon9.06.20l4andthereforethe periodoftwomonthsisnotcompletedandthereforethisapplicationisnot maintainable.

48)Thelearnedcounselforthefirstrespondentfurthercontendedthatthe petitionerhasnolocusstanditoapproachthiscourtexcepttheCommissionerhimself andthereforethisapplicationfiledbythepetitionerundersection॥7isnot maintainable.HefurthersubmittedthatasperAndhraPradeshMunicipalities (DecisionsofElectionDisputes)Rules967whichwerepublishedvideGO/॥७.|७०.।॥8,

M.A.,dated7.08.967:G.O.Ms.No.587,dated20.09.967,theSubordinateJudge havingterritorialjurisdictionoverthemunicipalareaorifthereismorethanonesuch

Judge,thePrincipalSubordinateJudgeishavingjurisdictiontoentertainelection

disputes.Healsofurthercontendedthatthisapplicationwasnotpresentedbythe petitionerbeforetheSeniorCivilJudgeandthereforethisapplicationisnot maintainable.Butthelearnedcounselforthepetitionercontendedthatthisapplication isperfectlymaintainableundersection(7ofAndhraPradeshMunicipalitiesAct.

9)Itisimportanttoseethataspersectionक्‍7acomplainthastobegiventothe

Commissioner,whichis given bythepetitioneron.06.20i4.Thesecondstepisthat thecommissionerhastoissue notice tothecouncilorandifhe hasgotanyobjection, thematterhas to beplacedbeforethecouncil bytheCommissioner.Thethirdoneis thattheCommissionerhimselfhastoapproachtheDistrictJudgeseeking disqualificationofaparticularcouncilororplacingthedisputebeforethecourtand

beforethat’hehastoaddressthegovernmentandwaitfortwomonthsforsanctionand

~ifnosanctionisgranted,hecandirectlyapproachthecourt.

ORIGINAL

ElectionO.P.No.242of20I4 Onthefileofthead |PrincipalDistrictJudge,Adilabad Page8of40t

20)Thelearnedcounselforthefirstrespondentcontendedthatthismatterhasto bedecidedbytheSeniorCivilJudgeastheSeniorCivilJudgehimselfistermedas

ElectionTribunalbasingontheAndhraPradeshMunicipalities(DecisionsofElection

Disputes)Rules967.Ifreallythisapplicationistreatedaselectionpetition,ithasto bepresentedbeforetheSeniorCivilJudge,Adilabad.IfthereisnoSeniorCivilJudge atAdilabad,thentheDistrictJudgehastomaintainsuchapplication.Thedeclarations thatcanbesoughtasperRule3arethattheelectionofthereturnedcandidateisvoid andthathehimselforanyothercandidateisdulyelectedandtheelectionasawholeis void.Thereforeifthepetitionerfilesapplicationforsettlementofelectiondispute thenthepetitionercanseekreliefofdeclarationastheelectionofthefirst respondenthereinisnotvalidandtodeclareheraselectedasprayedintheapplication.

2)Thelearnedcounselforthepetitionerfailedtoexplainthedifferencebetween section47oftheActandRules2to8andthedifferencebetweentheDistrictJudge referredtoinsection!7oftheActandtheSeniorCivilJudgeterminghimaselection tribunal.Ononehandthelearned counsel forthepetitionersaysthatitisanelection disputeandontheotherhandhesaysthatheisseekingdisqualificationofthefirst respondentowingtosection43 ofAndhraPradesh MunicipalitiesActas amendedfrom timetotime.Areadingofsection[7as wellas theRules underthe APMunicipalities

Rules (DecisionsofElectionDisputes)makesitclearthatifany personwantstoseek disqualificationofanypersonundersection3oftheMunicipalitiesActhastoapproach theDistrictJudge,butnotelectiontribunal.Ifthedisputesarerelatingtothe electionof acandidaterelatingtosomeotherdeficiencieshastoapproachtheSenior

CivilJudgei.e.,ElectionTribunal.

22% Thelearnedcounselforthefirstrespondenthasplacedacopyoftheorderof a{; thelearnedstAdditionalDistrictJudge,AdilabadrelatingtoasimilardisputeinOP50 $ of 2007seg6.04.20!andrequestedthis courttofollowthesame.Itisthebasic

ORIGINAL

ElectionO.P.No,242of20I4OnthefileoftheAn

PrincipalDistrictJudge,Adilabad

Page9of 0 principlethatthejudgmentsoftheequalcourtscannotbetakenintoconsiderationasa precedent.Eachcasehastobedecidedontherespectivefactsofthecasebythetrial courtsincludingthecourtsofDistrictJudges.Merelybecauseasimilardisputewas decidedbythethenIAdditional DistrictJudge,itcannotbetakenintoconsideration.

23)A perusal ofsection77oftheAndhraPradesh MunicipalitiesActas well asthe

Rulesplacedbeforethiscourtmakesitclearthatanydisputearisingoutofsection43 seekingdisqualification of amembercan bebroughtbeforetheDistrictJudgebythe commissioneronlyand ifanydisputerelatingtotheconduct of electionorquestioning thenominationthatwasfiled,etc.,duringthecourseofelectionandthecontestensare tobebroughtbeforetheElectionTribunali.e.,theSeniorCivilJudge.

24)Itisthespecificpleadingofthepetitionerthatshedidnotraiseanyobjection atthetimeofacceptingnomination bytheelectionofficerandshehasnoknowledge aboutthesamebythem.Thereforebecauseshegotknowledgeofthefirstrespondent havingtwochildrenafter994shehasrightlypresentedapplicationtothe

Commissionerbutsheoughttohavewaitedtillthecompletionoftwomonthstime.

EveniftheCommissionerhasnotissuednoticetothefirstrespondentonthe applicationofthepetitionerandevenifhedidnotplacethematterbeforethecouncil orevenifhedidnotwritetotheGovernmentforsanctiontoproceedagainstthefirst respondent,thetechnicalaspectofthewaitingperiodoftwomonthscannotbe dispensedwith.IfatalltheCommissionerhasnottakenanyactionasperSection7० theActtheonlyremedyopentothepetitioneristoapproachtheHon'bleHighCourtto directtheCommissionertoproceedundersectionoftheActandthepetitionercannot fileapplicationbefore theDistrictJudgestraightawayandshehasnolocusstandi.

efore,thispetitionisnotmaintainableand itisliableto bedismissed.Issueno.2 %afet 4isansweredaccordingly.

ORIGINAL

ElectionO.P.No,242of20i4 Onthefileofthe

PrincipalDistrictJudge,Adilabad

Page0of0f

25)INTHERESULT,thepetitionisdismissed,butinthecircumstanceswithout costs.

Dictatedtothestenographer,transcribedbyhim,correctedandpronouncedby

meinopencourtthisthe24"dayofNovember2045,

oyeed

PRINCIPALDIsTRECTJUDGE,

ADILABAD

|APPENDIXOFEVIDENCE

WITNESSESEXAMINED

|FORPETITIONERFORRESPONDENTS

|PW.SuraLaxmiNONE

PW.2TatiAshokRao PW.3AlleshwarSriHari

EXHIBITSMARKED

ExAlCardissuedbyElectionofficertoNIL thepetitioner ExA2Servedcopyofapplicationfor “disqualificationofrespondent ExA3Certifiedcopyofbirthcertificate ofthesonofक्‍7respondent Ex.A.4BirthcertificateofMohd.Rohith BirthcertificateofSimran

ExA5Thabassum

ExA6Bonafideandconductcertificateof

iMohd.Naveed

ExATBonafideandconductcertificateof गाMohd.Rohith Bonafideandconductcertificateof Ex.A.8

SimranThabassum

X-SERIESMARKED

Ex.X.l:AttestedxeroxcopyofrelevantpageinAdmissionregister Ex.X.2:AttestedxeroxcopyofadmissionformofMd.Naveeth Ex.X.3:Attestedxeroxcopyofrelevantpageofregisterofadmission Ex.X.4:AdmissionformofMd.Rohith Ex.X.5:OriginalapplicationforadmissionofSimranThabassum iExX.6:Originalapplicationwrittenbythefatherofstudentseekingadmission

ctEx.X.7:Originalrecordsheet

il

PRINCIPALDISTRICTJUDGE,

ADILABAD

Us:ORIGINAL

INTHECOURTOFTHEJUDGE,FAMILYCOURT-CUM-IVADDL.

ceDISTRICTANDSESSIONSJUDGE::ADILABAD

Present:Smt.ArunaSarika,

Judge,FamilyCourt-Cum-IVAddl.

DistrictandSessionsJudge, Adilabad.

Thursdaythe26dayofNovember205

CriminalAppealNo.65OF205

Between:

ThippaniHariprasadS/oRajaiahaged38years,occ;Business R/oH.No.27-246,BhagathNagar,Hamaliwada,Mancherial. >Appellant

and

P.SrinivasS/onotknownaged40years,occ:Businessc/o MangaPrasadH.No.27-395/5/,oppPRisingSunSchool, TilakNagarRoad,Hamaliwada,Mancherial.

..Respondent

(Onappealagainsttheorderdated08.04.205madeinCC.No.228/205 (new)andCCNo.88/2023(old)bythePrincipalJudicialMagistrateofFirstClass, Mancherial.)

Between: ThippaniHariprasad Complainant

and

P.Srinivas

..Accused

ThisCriminalAppealhasbeen finally heardon3..205inthepresence ofSriSanjayKumarVairagare,Advocatefortheappellantandtherespondentin personanduponhearingboth sides andhavingstoodforconsiderationtillthis day,thiscourtdeliveredthefollowing:

JUDGMENT

LsThiscriminalappealis filedbythe appellant/complainantagainst theacquittalorders.againsttherespondent/accusedpassedbythelearned

PrincipalJudicialMagistrateofFirst Class,MancherialinCC.No.228/20I5(new)

(CC.No.88/2023old)videjudgmentdated08.04.205.‘

|=

ORIGINAL

हुCrl.Appeal00.65of2045

2.Thecaseoftheprosecution is asfollows:“On22.07.2009,theaccused

approachedthecomplainant and borrowedananiméofRs.2,50,000/-athis

residencetomeethisnecessitiesandforrepaymentofthesaidamounthehas issuedachequebearing४०.5087dated03.09.200forRs.,30,000/-towards

principalandinterestinfavour of thecomplainantdrawnonDeccanGrameena

Bank,BranchMancherial.Thecomplainantpresented thesaidchequeinOriental

BankofCommerce,Mancherialon03.09.200.Thecheugewassentforcollection.

Inturnthesaidchequewasdishonouredwithmemodated04.09.200byDeccan

GrameenaBank,Mancherialforthereasonof‘fundsinsufficient’intheaccountof* theaccused.Onthereceiptofreturnedcheuge,the complainantgotissueda noticeon09.09.20I0throughhiscounselinformingtheaccusedaboutthe dishonourofchequeissuedbyhimandremandedtheaccusedtopaythecheque ofRs.,90,000/-tothecomplainant.Thenoticewassentbyspeedpoutanditwas

servedon3.09.200.Inspiteofserviceofnoticetheaccusedneitherpaidthe

chequeamountnorissuedanyreply.Thereforethecomplaintwasfiledbeforethe

PrincipalJudicialMagistrateofFirstClass,Mancherialon26.0.200.”

3.AfterexaminationofcomplainantthelearnedPrincipalJudicial

MagistrateofFirstClass,Mancherialhadtakencognizanceagainsttheaccusedfor

theoffenceunderSection38ofNegotiableInstrumentsAct.है

4.Afterappearanceofaccused,completedtherequirementsunder

Section207Cr.P.C.ThelearnedPrincipalJudicialMagistrateofFirstClass,

Mancherial-heardboththesidesandexaminedtheaccusedunderSection25

GPC:explainingthesubstanceofaccusationfortheoffenceunderSection38of

NegotiableInstrumentsAct,readoverandexplainedtotheaccusedandhe

pleadednotguiltyandclaimedtobetried.=lew

ORIGINAL

Crt.AppealNo.65of2075(®

EY

2ae

5.Tosubstantiatetheircaseandinordertobringhometheguiltof accused,thecomplainantduringthetrialexaminedhimselfasPWandExs.P/to

P8weremarkedonhisside.Afterclosureofprosecutionevidence,the appellant/accusedwasexaminedundersection33Cr.P.C.withregardto incriminatingevidencefoundagainsthim,forwhichhedeniedthesaidevidence andreportedthathehasnodefenceevidence.

6.Onhearingthearguments,thelearnedPrincipalJudicialMagistrate ofFirstClass,Mancherialarrivedataconclusionthattheprosecutionfailedto establishtheguiltoftheaccusedfortheoffenceunderSection38ofNegotiable

InstrumentsActandacquittedtheaccusedunderSection255()Cr.P.C.

7,Aggrievedofthesaidjudgment,thecomplainanthadpreferredthis criminalappealandurged,apartfromtheusualgrounds,thefollowingspecific groundsofappeal:“

i)Thelowercourtgrosslyerredinholdingthattheamountadvancedto therespondentbytheappellantwasunaccountedamountasitwasnot shownintheincometaxanditssourcewasnotgivenandthusitisnota legallyenforceableliabilityoftherespondentandassuchitcannot attracttheexplanationunderSection38ofNegotiableInstrumentsAct andfurtherobserved that theappellanthasfailedto provedcaseand acquittedtherespondent.

ii)Thelowercourtfailedtoappreciatethe fact thatifatalltheappellant hasviolatedanylawheisanswerabletocompetentauthoritybut on presumptionthattheappellantmaybedoingmoneylendingbusiness

“unauthorizedlyandbasingonthesamethelowercourt,cannotacquit

therespondentholdingthattherespondenthasnoliabilitytopaythe sameisgrosslyerroneous..

iii)Thatthelowercourtmisleaditselfinacquittingtheappellantliterallyby

steppingintotheshoesoftherespondentandthusthejudgmentin

neappealneedstosetaside.AeLae

ORIGINAL

4Crl.AppealNo.65of205 iv)Thatthejudgment ofthelowercourtisbasedonmerepresumptions and assumptions andtherenosoundreasoninggiven’toacquitthe”~ respondentandthejudgmentofacquittalisliabletobesetaside.

8.The learned counselforrespondent/accusedsubmittedthatthere arenospecificgroundstointerferewiththejudgmentunderappealandtherefore theappealisliabletobedismissed.Hefurthersubmitted thatthetrialcourthas consideredallthematerialaspectsandfinallyarrivedataconclusionthatthe complainantfailed toestablishtheguiltoftheaccusedandacquittedhimunder

Section255()Cr.P.C.

9.Now,thepointsthatarosefordeterminationinthisappealare:

.Whetherthecomplainantcouldbringhometheguiltoftheaccused fortheoffenceunderSection38ofNegotiableInstrumentsAct beyondalloranyreasonabledoubt?

2.Whetherthejudgmentpassedbythetrialcourtacquittingthe accusedfindinghimnotguiltywarrantsanyinterferencebythis court?

3.Towhatorder?

20.Nooralordocumentaryevidenceisadducedbeforethiscourtof appeal.

7.POINTSNO.iAND2:

a)Beforegoingtodealwiththemeritsofthecasefordeterminationof thepoints,itisrelevanttoexaminetheevidenceofallthewitnessesandalso documentaryevidencesubmittedonboththesides.

७9).PWIisthecomplainant.Inhisexaminationinchiefwhichwasfiled intheformofproofaffidavitunderSectionआजकल? ofNegotiableInstrumentsAct,he

es

ORIGINAL

Crt.AppealNo.65of2075(5)

returnedhispleadedcaseandexhibitedExs.P!toP8andinhiscross-examination ithecomplainantasPWhadstatedthatatpresentheisdoingagriculturalwork andearlierhedidrealestatebusiness.PWIstatedthatheisnotanincometax assessee.Hecategoricallystatedthathefiledthreemoresimilarcasesbeforethe courtofPrincipalJudicialMagistrateofFirstClass,Mancherialagainstone

SeetharamforRs.2,50,000/-,againstoneVijayKumarforRs.,70,00/-andagainst oneAkulaMaheshforRs.,20,000/-and:inthesaidcasesalsoheadvanced amountasloanwith2%interest.20]furtherstatedthatheisnotholdingany moneylendinglicense.PWIalsostatedthattherewerewitnessestothe

promissorynoteexecutedandhetoldtheaccusedtoYeturnthepromissorynote

afterrealizationofthechequeamount.PW]categoricallystatedthaton03.09.200, accusedissuedदा?chequetohimandnoonewaspresentwhileheissued chequetohim.HefurtherstatedthathedoesnotknowwhofilledtheEx.Pland theaccusedhandedoverthefilledEx.Pltohim.7॥॥deniedthesuggestions madeonbehalfoftheaccused.Asrightlyobservedbythelearnedtrialcourt,to comeundertheprovisionsofSection438ofNegotiableInstrumentsAct,debtor liabilityhastobea‘legallyrecoverabledebtorliability’andfollowedtheratiolaid downbytheHon’bleSupremeCourtinthecaseofKrishnaJanardhanBhattVs.

DattatreyaG.Hegde,(2008)4SCC54,II(2008)BC44(SC),thereisno presumptionunderSection39ofNegotiableInstrumentsActthatthedebtisa legallyrecoverabledebtand theApexCourtreiteratedthatadebtorliability

subject-matterofSection38meansalegallyenforceabledebt or liabilityina

decisionmadeinthecaseofGoaPlast(P)Ltd.Vs.ChicoUrsuaD’Souza,I (2004)

BC246(SC)=VII(2003) SLT247.The complainantthoughnotpleadedor deposedthattheamountwhichheadvancedtotheaccusedisnotanunaccounted debthedidnotchoosetofileanydocumenttoshowthesaidamountwhichwas saidtobeadvancedtotheaccusedwasfromaccountableaccount.Admittedly,the complainantisnotanincometaxassessee.ThetestimonyofPWIclearly establishesthatheisin a habitofadvancingerinesto peopleoninterest@2%

-—

ORIGINAL

6Crl.Appeal‘No.65of2075 whichisnothingbutmoneylendingbusiness.Fromtheownadmittedfactsby complainantclearlydisclosesthatthesaid amountdilegedto beadvancedtothe accusedwas notdulydisclosedbycomplainantbeforeanyauthority. Hencethe ingredientsofSection38ofNegotiableInstrumentsActdonotattracttothecase onhandandthelearnedMagistrateconsideringthesameacquittedtheaccused.

Thecomplainant filedthecomplaintbyfollowingprocedureaslaiddownunder

Section38ofNegotiableInstrumentsActtofileacomplaintunderthesaid provisionand itisalsoprovedthatthelegalnoticewhichwassentto accused priortofilingofthecomplaintwasdulyreceivedonhisbehalfanditamountsto~ serviceofnoticeonhim.Thereisnootherirregularityorillegalityin filingthe compliantbythecomplainantagainsttheaccusedunderSection38ofNegotiable

InstrumentsActbuttheonlypointforconsiderationiswhetherthesaidamount

allegedtobeadvancedtotheaccused@2%interestandinturnon0०torepay

thesaidamount,the—issuedcehqueunderEx.Plcanbeconsideredasa

legallyrecoverabledebtorliabilitytoattractSection38ofNegotiable

InstrumentsAct.Whentheamountallegedtobeadvancedtotheaccusedisan unaccountableamount,thereisnothingtolookintotheotheraspectssuchas chequewasdulyissuedbytheaccusedtothecomplainant.

c)NowthattheoralevidenceofthewitnessPWisappreciated,itis nownecessarytolookintothedocumentsmarkedby90as9.2toP8.A perusal०8६2,thechequebearingNo.5087dated03.09.200,wouldshowthat itisissuedbytheaccusedinthenameofthecomplainantforRs.,90,000/-andit isofDeccanGrameenaBank,MancherialBranch.AperusalofEx.P2,payslip

dated93.09:200,wouldshowthatthecomplainantsubmittedकायchequein

OrientalBankofCommerceforencashment,AperusalofEx.P3,chequereturn memodated04.09.200,wouldshowthatthememowasissuedbyDeccan

Grameena’Bank,MancherialBranchtotheManagerofOrientalBankof

*.-Commerce,Mancherialstatingthatthefeu

bearingच०.5087/for

ORIGINAL

Rs.,90,000/-isreturnedunpaidforthereasonof‘insufficientfunds’.Aperusalof(4)Cl.AppealNo.65of205 N ,ExP4,officecopyoflegalnoticedated09.09.200,wouldshowthatthenoticewas

issuedtotheaccusedbySriGudurSatyanarayanRao,000०,Mancherial

undertheinstructionsofthecomplainantregardingdishonourofEx.Plcheque callingupontheaccusedtopaythechequeamountofRs.,90,000/-within75days ortoproceedagainsttheaccusedunderSection38*ofNegotiableInstruments

Act.AperusalofEx.P5,thepostalreceipt,wouldshowthatitisaddressedtothe accusedanditbearsNo.5904.AperusalofEx.P6,postalacknowledgement,would showthattheregisteredletterwithNo.5904whichwasaddressedtotheaccused wasreceivedbyP.Aparnaon23.09.200.AperusalofEx.P7,undercertificateof

posting,wouldshowthatitwasaddressedtotheaccusedandfromaddressis

shownas‘SatyarayanaRaoGudur,Advocate,CourtBuilding,Mancherialanditis

dated09.09.200.AperusalofEx.P8,promissorynotedated22.07.2009,would

showthattheaccusedobtainedloanforRs.,50,000/-fromthecomplainant agreeingtorepaythesamewith2%interestwheneveraskedbythepromisee.

d)ThelearnedMagistratehadrightlyappreciatedtheentireevidence onrecordandarrivedatajustconclusionabouttheproofofguiltoftheaccused andrightlyfoundtheaccusednotguiltyandacquittedhim.ThelearnedPrincipal

JudicialMagistrateofFirstClass,Mancherialhasalsorightlyappreciatedthefacts

onrecordandfoundthattheevidenceisnotsufficienttdestablishguiltagainstthe accusedtoattracttheoffenceunderSection38oftheAct.Thecomplainantfailed toestablishtheguilt oftheaccusedfortheoffenceunderSection38oftheAct beyondanyreasonabledoubt.Thereforetheacquittalorderagainstthe respondent/accusedfortheoffenceunderSection38oftheNegotiable

InstrumentsActisvalidandsustainableunderfactsandlawandI seenoinfirmity tointerferewiththeimpugnedjudgmentofthelearnedMagistrate.Therefore,the judgmentofacquittalbythelearnedMagistrateisjust'andproperandsustainable~

_underfactsandlaw.ThepointsIand2areheldfeWedingly.

ae

ORIGINAL

8Crt.AppealNo.65of205

2.POINTNO.3: »

44Intheresult,thecriminalappealisdismissedbyconfirmingthe

acquittalorderpassedon08.04.20[5inCC.No.228/20I5(oldCC.No.88/203)by thelearnedPrincipalJudicialMagistrateofFirstClass,Mancherial.

Dictated toStenographer,transcribedbyherandaftercorrectionpronouncedby-

meinopencourtonthisthe26"dayofNovember205.5cmanheatlhL.

DISTRICTANDSESSIONSJUD!hs

ADILABAD

ar ‘Talea

je

ssFIN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE : ADILABAD

Present: Sri 6. Gopala Krishna Murthy,

Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad

FRIDAY THE 20™ DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015

Crl.A.No. 74 Of 2014

Judgment in Criminal Appeal:Crl.A.No. 74 of 2014

From what court the appeal is:Collector (Civil Supplies) ~ PreferredAdilabad

Number of the case in that court :€S6/360/2014

Number of the appeal;Crl.A.No. 74 of 2014

Name and description of:Chewa Bhaskar S/O. Gopal, Age: 41 years, * Appellant / accusedOcc: Business & Proprietor of M/S Ayyappa Traders, D.No.4-198, Plot No.6, Sri Satya Sai Nagar, Saroor Nagar, RR district.

The sentence and law under:50% value of the seized stock is ordered for Which it was imposed in theconfiscation to the government and fine of Lower courtRs.5,000/- is imposed on the vehicle for involvement in illegal transport in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle.

- Whether confirmed, revised+ IN THE RESULT the appeal is allowed setting and if modified.aside the order dated 03.07.2014 passed by the learned Collector (Civil Supplies), Adilabad in caseNo.CS6/360/2014registeredunder section 6-A of me EssentialCommodities Act confiscating 50% value of the stock seized and| the appellant is entitled for getting back the 50% value of the stock seized and the same shall be paid back to the appellant within two months from the date of this judgment. Since there was no appeal preferred by the owner of thelorry challenging imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- on the lorry, it is not touched by this court.

PresentationFilingNoticeBail Bond |HearingOrder

JE?%q5—- 2 Het “14'07.201415.07.2014 | 15.07.2014--05.11.201520:11.2015 4 :;— oot~: x3 CmES 4eT

Page 1 of 7

Crl.A.No. 74 of 2014

On the file of Pri Sessions Court, aAdilabad “Pagej2 of 7

This Criminal Appeal is coming on before me for final hearing on 05.11.2015 in _ the presence of Sri A. Amarender Reddy, Advocate for the appellant and Sri Naresh _ Kumar Joshi, Government Pleader for the state and on hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1)The appellant filed this appeal challenging the final orders passed by the learned , Collector (Civil Supplies) in CS6/360/2014dated 03.07.2014 under section 6-A of the

Essential Commodities Act confiscating 50% value of the stock seized in favour of the government.

2)~— The Assistant Supply Officer, Asifebod filed report under section 6-A of the . Essential Commodities Act before the learned Collector (Civil Supplies), Adilabad and the brief facts of the case are as follows: '

i) On 15.04.2014 during midnight the Station House Officer, Sirpur

Town during inspection stopped lorry bearing No.AP.29.TA.2255 coming from Hyderabad to Gondia of Maharashtra carrying 388 plastic rice bags containing 187.82 quintals of ‘rice without valid documents and therefore he handed over the same to the Tahsildar of Sirpur Town for furtheraction.On receiptainformation the AssistantSupply

Officer,Asifabad along with Mandal Revenue Inspector,Sirpur Town inspected the vehicle kept in police station on 16.04.2014 at 1.00 p.m., and noticed that rice was being illegally transportedto Goindia of

Maharashtra state and therefore seized the same and handed over the same to one Ch. Sudhakar in-charge of MLS point of Sirpur Town on - the same day and the unloaded vehicle was handed over to the police.

geii)‘Qn 17.04.2014 they secured the panchas and informed them about~~

egal transportation of raw rice and after conducting panchanama™ r

| @

"andon recording the statementof. thedriver and seizing the~~~ bv sey 4essen ahy

BoA

:®

Crl.A.No. 74 of 2014

On the file of Pri Sessions Court, Adilabad" Page 3 of.7 documentsfromthedrivertheyfound thattherewereno valid documents and seized stock worth Rs.3,94,422/- and filed a case

before the learned Collector (Civil Supplies).

~ 3)The learned Collector (Civil Supplies) issued show cause notice under 6-B of the ‘ Essential Commodities Act calling for explanation from the appellant herein with the following charge:

“1) The respondent is illegally transporting the raw rice in huge quantity without any bills or way bills etc., to the Mahandghithe ditto: shows that he is indulging in clandestine business of Rice in whole." “ 4)The appellant submitted his reply to the show cause notice stating that a false case was velitagainst him and it can be noticed from the fact that the loading point and unloading point were mentioned in the panchanama and without there being any . bills or properdocumentssuchinformation could notbe even mentioned in the panchanama and thereforethe question of-doing clandestine business does not arise and the goods bidlons to them and thereforeit may be ordered to be delivered to him.

%

5)The learned Collector (Civil Supplies) on consideration of the documents placed ' before him did-not satisfy with the explanation offered and did not satisfy with the - bills and ordered for confiscation of 50% of the value of the stock seized and imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- on the vehicle.

6)As against these final orders the appellant preferredthis appeal contending that the order of the learned Collector (Civil Supplies) is opposed to the facts of case and law and thereforeit is liable to be set aside. He furthercontended that the order of te, | ar .(Civil Supplies) is on, the basis of presumptions and-.assumptions aN‘ sidering the facts of the case.on record and therefore it is liable to be set her contended that the panchanama contents itself disclose the loading

Crl.A.No. 74 of 2014

. On the file of Prl Sessions Court, 4 Adilabad{ wv Pagej4 of 7 and unloading points and the presence of bills and thereforeit is very much clear that a false case was filed against the appellant and thereforeit is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that because of the commotion arose in the local area the Station House'Officer stopped the lorry which is carrying goods along with proper bills and the revenue authorities also in order to divert local ~ problem foisted this case and therefore the orders of the learned Collector are liable

to be set aside.

7)The learned Government Pleader appearing for the firstrespondentsupported . the order of the learned Collector (Civil Supplies) and requestedthe court to dismiss the appeal treating it as no merits.

8)Now the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the final orders passed by the learned Collector (Civil

Supplies), Adilabad is valid, basing on the facts and records and if not whether the order is liable to be set aside or to be modified?

POINT:

+9)It is an admitted fact that the appellant transported raw rice of 187.82 quintals through a lorry bearing No.AP.22.TA.2255 and it was stoppedby the Station House

Officer Sirpur Town police station during his routine check and on suspicion he handed over the same to the Assistant Supply Officer, Asifabad, who examined and seized the ; stock under the impression that the goods‘is being illegally transported to Maharashtra _ without proper bills and filed a case under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities

Act before the learned Collector.

10)The panchanama dated 16.04.2014 discloses that on 16.04.2014 they went to |

Crl.A.No. 74 of 2014

On the file of Pri Sessions Court, Adilabad Page 5 of 7 " Gondia district of Maharashtra state without any bills and it was informed to the * Tahsildar on 16.04.2014 and the same was produced before the mediators and it was seized.The statementof the alleged driverMohammedJaffardisclosesthathe has ~ shown the form 14 of M/S Ayyappa Traders, ‘Hyderabad (delivery note), form of way bill NO.59, bill No.111 dated 14.04.2014.andhe also furnishedthe names of Sri Ch.

Bhaskar S/O. Gopal of M/S Ayyappa Traders, Hyderabad.The invoice No.138 for _ transporting 170 quintals to Rajesh Rice Mill Gondia and the way bill with the signature | ” of consignor in duplicate and the transportbill issued by Rahat Roadways, Yousuf Guda,

Hyderabad and the weighing bills issued by Modern Way Bridge, Zoo Park, Hyderabad were seized by the Assistant Supply Officer, Asifabad at the time of panchanama *dated 16.04.2014. Therefore, it is very much clear that the bills were present with the driver when the vehicle was stopped by the Station House Officer,Sirpur Town police station and handed over to the Tahsildar, which was in turn handed to the Assistant

Supply Officer showing all the particulars necessary for the transportationof goods.

11)It is not the case of the Assistant Supply Officer that there was a restriction imposed by the government fortransportationof rice from theStateof Andhra

Pradesh to Maharashtraat the relevant point of time. The said fact was also not noted by the learned Collector (Civil Supplies) in his final orders.Thereforeit is very much clear thatit is only on the suspicion of:transportationof goods the StationHouse

Officer Sirpur town stopped lorry and handed over the same to the Assistant Supply ~ Officer and the Assistant Supply Officer;having verified it did not satisfy himself and filed the case. Even after filing case there was no attempt on the part of the Assistant

Supply Officer to find out whether these bills were genuinely issued by the sender of goods or not.

#teis

#*3. ara:

12) The learned Collector(¢ along with: lorry® has

Crl.A.No. 74 of 2014

On the file of Pri Sessions Court, Adilabad Page'6 of 7 transportation of goods and therefore’ the appellant was indulged in clandestine business and thereby ordered confiscatiorrof 50% of the goods, which does not sustain.

* The learned counsel for the appellant coritended that as there was no evidence to the . extent that the appellant was indulged in any clandestine business the said confiscation of 50% of the stock is illegal and it is liable to be set aside.

13)In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of our Hon'ble

High Court in a case between Gurram Venkateswarluand OthersVs. Collector and

District Magistrate, Prakasham District; Ongole and another’, wherein His Lordship ~ of our Hon'ble High Court while considering the a Batch of cases under section 6-A of

Essential Commodities Act held that Seizure of stock for contravention of Licensing

Order and confiscation of seized stock under section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act cannot be sustained,when thereis no finding thatthe petitionersare carrying on business of such produce or have storedthe same for the purpose of business and a solitary instance of storage would not amount to carrying on business and thereby the

Hon'ble High Court allowed the writ petitions.The above cited case facts squarely

~ apply to the case on hand. There is no other instance except the present one to show that the appellant was in the habit of transporting rice illegally. Therefore in view of "the finding of the Hon'ble High Court in the above cited case basing on the solitary circumstance it is not justified to say that the appellant is indulged in any clandestine business.

14)Further the goods under transportation is having proper bills and way bills which are reflected in the panchanama itself dated 16.04.2014 at the earliest point of time .and they were.seized by the Assistant Supply Officer at the time of panchanama andsubmitted) the game to the learned Collector.But the learned Collector (Civil 4yy ekiayof ;Supplies)"Wwithout verifying the genuineness of the bills by calling for the report over

ER aateBy '2014(2) ALD 523

Crl.A.No. 74 of 2014

On the file of Pri Sessions Court, Nhe Adilabad Page 7 of-7 the documents arrived at a conclusion that they are not genuine bills and ordered for confiscation.Therefore,the order under appeal to the extentof confiscation of 50% of the stock seized alone is liable to be set aside as the imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- : on the lorry is not challenged in this appeal. Point is held accordingly.

~ 15)IN THE RESULT the appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 03.07.2014 passed by the learned Collector (Civil Supplies), Adilabad in case No.CS6/360/2014 : registeredunder section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act confiscating 50% value of the stock’seized and the appellant is entitled for getting back the 50% value of the stock seized and the same shall be paid back to the appellant within two months from _ the date of this judgment.Since there,wasno appeal preferredby the owner of the lorry challenging imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- on the lorry, it is not touched by this * court.

Dictated to thestenographer,transcribedby him and aftercorrection

; pronounced by me in open court on this the.20™ day of November 2015.

Loa

CATAbh

PRL SESSIONSJUDGE

ADILABAD

:

pr. Me

# ] a“.’ IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE : ADILABAD Present: Sri 6. Gopala Krishna Murthy,

Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad

THURSDAY THE 19"DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015

Crl.A.No. 71 Of 2014

Judgment in Criminal Appeal:Crl.A.No. 71 of 2014 . From what court the appeal is:Collector (Civil Supplies) . PreferredAdilabad

Number of the case in that court:CS6/355/2014

Number of the appeal~&Crl.A.No. 71 of 2014 , Name and description of:K. Srinivas Reddy S/o Lachareddy, GPA of Appellant / accusedProprietor ofM/sMallikarjuna Traders, D.No.3-1-254/1/31, Nehru chowk, Adilabad.

The sentence and law under:100% value of the seized stock amounting to Which it was imposed in theRs.4,64,000/- is ordered for confiscation to the Lower courtgovernment.

” Whether confirmed, revised: In the result the order under appeal passed by and if modified.thelearnedCollector(CS),Adilabadis confirmed but the quantity is modified to the extentof 10% of the seized stock or its value insteadof 100% of the stockseized.The value of 90% stock seized shall be refunded to the appellant. within a month from the date of this order.

PresentationFilingNotice |Bail Bond |HearingOrder —-4.7.20144.7.2014---12.11.201519.11.2015

This Criminal Appeal is coming on before me for final hearing on 16.02.2015 in ” the presence of Smt Sonali Joshi and of Sri Sudheer Kumar Sangem, Advocates for veg ~the,appellant and Sri Naresh Kumar Joshi, Government Pleader for the state and on inhearing, both sides and the matterhaving stood over for consideration till we day, this -courf made the following:a;

~~.JUDGMENT

|ded.

THe%ppeliant filed this appeal challenging final orders passed by the Collector f.

_ Page 1 of 5

Crl.A.No. 71 of 2014

On the file of Pri Sessions Court, Adilabadbet Page'2 of 5

2)The brief factsof the case are thatthe Deputy Tahsildar(Enf) Ichoda on : telephonic call from Vigilance and Enforcement Officials, Karimnagar visited the premises of the appellant on 16.4.2014 at about1.10 p.m., and at that time K.Srinivas

Reddy, Proprietor of Mallikarjuna Traders was also present and on his enquiry,the said _ K.Srinivas Reddy failed to show the records relating to stock and failed to produce the sameand therefore, he inspected the same and found 100 quintals of Red gram and 70 ‘ quintals of Bengal gram available physically and he believed thattheappellant is procuring the pulses illegally from the farmersat low price and doing clandestine " business to earn money illegally and seized the same in the presence of mediators under cover of panchanama. The Deputy Tahsildar filed 6-A case patine the Collector (Civil

Supplies) Adilabad. TheCollector (civil Supplies) hasregisteredacasein _ €86/355/2014 and an interim disposal orders were issued,

3)The Collector (Civil Supplies) also issued show cause notice under 6-B of the

Essential Commodities Act on 17.4.2014 to the appellant on the following charge:

“The respondent has illegally stored 100 quintals of red gram and 70 quintals of Bengal gram for gain without maintaining the recordsin his vais;thus contravened of clause 3 of APSC (Licensing, Storage and

Regulation)Order 2008".

4)The appellant submitted reply to the show cause notice stating thatthe ‘ respondent came to his shop forinspection while unloading the stock therefore,he ived at a conclusion that he is not convinced with the explanation

&

nead iit¥éds by. the appellant and ordered for 100% confiscation in favour of the government. Having aggrieved against the said order, this appeal is preferred.

:' .Crl.A.No, 71 of 2014 .On the file of Pri Sessions Court,

~~Adilabad

‘Page 3 of 5.

6)— It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order of confiscation of 100% value of stock seized is illegal and it is not based on the principles ” of natural justice and therefore it is liable to be set aside. He also submitted that the learned Collector (CS) failed to consider the way bill of Bengal Gram and therefore,he ought to have arrived at a conclusion that it is only an afterthoughtand therefore,the , ordersunderappealis bad in law and itis purely basedon assumptionsand presumptions, which is not at all maintainable and thereforeprayed for allowing the appeal.:

; 7)The learnedGovernment Pleader submittedthattheorderof thelearned " Collector (Civil-Supplies) is based on the material placed before him and therefore ‘ there are no grounds sufficient to interfere with the order of the learned Collector (Civil Supplies) and thereforethe appeal may be dismissed.

8)Now the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the order of the confiscation passed by the Collector (Civil

Supplies), Adilabad is sustainable and if not whether the said order is to be modified?

~ POINT:

* 9)The appellant K.Srinivas Reddy is the GPA holder of A.Bhumareddy, who is the proprietor of Mallikarjuna Traders, which is dealing in food grains and the godown is "locatedin D.No.3-1-254/1/31,Nehru Chowk, Adilabad.The panchanama disclose that the inspection party visited the godown of the appellant on 164.2014 at about 1.10 p.m., andsthey: found 100 quintals of red gram and 70 quintals of Bengal gram.The “the proprietor.1the panchanama further disclose that they have verified the licence

“No.ADB/05/2012 and it was renewed upto the year 2014-2015 and they have’ also

;

..

Crl.A.No, 71 of 2014 On the file of Pri SessionsCourt, Adilabad Page:4 of 5 verified the stock register but these two‘items were not entered in the register and " the rest of the items were tallied.Even the explanation given by the appellant herein thathe receivedthe stock and at thetime of unloading thesame, suddenly the inspecting party came and seized the ieThe explanation given by the appellant was , not acceptedby thelearned Collector (cs),Adilabad exceptnot mentioning those stocks in the stock register.Either for the reason statedby the appellant or for any other reason, there was no violation that was committed by the appellant.

“10.It is very much clear that the panaciek (Civil Supplies) has to decide the matter on merits. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that as there was no evidence to the extentthat the appellant was indulged in any clandestine business the , Said confiscation of 100% of the stock is illegal and it is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of our Hon'ble High Court in a case —Gurram Venkateswarlu and Others Vs. Collector and District

Magistrate,PrakashamDistrict,Ongole and another’,wherein His Lordship of our

“ Hon'ble High Court while considering the a Batch of cases under section 6-A of

Essential Commodities Act held thatSeizure of stock for contraventionof Licensing

Order and confiscation of seized stock under section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act : cannot be sustained, when there is no finding that the petitioners are carrying on business of such produce or have stored the same for the purpose of business and a solitary instance of storagewould not amount to carrying on business and therebythe

Hon'ble High Court allowed the writ petitions.

Thé’above citation squarely applies to the case on hand. In the present case also ‘thereare no earlier instances, wherein the appellant stored huge quantity of stocks in y iToee his mill and this isthe solitary instance of storage of stock. Therefore, in the light of ° the cited case, this solitary instance of finding 100 quintals of red gram and 70 quintals 2014(2) ALD 523

Crl.A.No.71 of 2014

On the file of Prl Sessions Court, Adilabad Page 5 of 5 . of Bengal gram by the appellant in his godown cannot be construed that it was stored for carrying on any business.

12)It is very much clear from the above citation that mere holding of stock without observation that the petitioneris doing any clandestine business, is not sufficientand therefore, the order of the confiscation of the entire stock by the learned Collector ~ (CS), Adilabad is not proper. It is the contention of the appellant that the goods being unloaded at the time of inspection and surprisingly they have inspected, but they did not note down this fact.Further it is also important to note that at the time of enquiry by the learned Collector (CS) no document was produced by the appellant and there was no representation.A perusal of the petition filed by the appellant before the Collector (CS), Adilabad disclose that way bills issued by the Commercial Tax

Department fortransporting thegoods from 10.4.2014 to 13.4.2014 filed for - transportingred gram, etc., These documents have not even touchedby the learned

Collector (CS), Adilabad and therefore,it cannot be said that the appellant was involved " in clandestinebusiness.However,it is a factthatthe stockwas not enteredin the registersandtherefore,theorderofthelearnedCollector(CS), Adilabad is sustainable, but the confiscation of 100% is not proper and it is reduced to 10%, which is reasonable and justified.The point is held accordingly.

13)In the result,the orderunder appeal passed by thelearned Collector (Civil

Supplies), Adilabad is confirmed, but the order is modified to the extent of 10% of the _ seized stock or its value instead of 100% of the stock seized. The value of 90% stock ied% seized shall be refunded to the appellant within a month from the date of this order.

\\

yeu,: T pe by the stenographerto my dictation and aftercorrection pronounced by “me in open court on this the 19" day of November, 2015.

aPRL SESSIONS JUDGE

ADILABAD

_.PTs 19

th:

"

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE : ADILABAD

Present: Sri 6. Gopala Krishna Murthy,

Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad

WEDNESDAY THE 18™ DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015

Crl.A.No.3 Of 2015

: Judgment in Criminal Appeal:Crl.A.No, 3 of 2015

From what court the appeal is:Collector (Civil Supplies) " PreferredAdilabad

Number of the case in that court:€S6/728/2014 “ Number of the appeal;Crl.A.No. 3 of 2015

Name and description of:J. Rafeeq S/O. Sadruddin, Age: 45 years, Appellant / accusedOcc: Business, R/O. Heena Ginning Mill, Asifabad, Adilabad district _ The sentence and law under:100% value of the stock seized is ordered for _ Which it was imposed in theconfiscation to the government. Lower court Whether confirmed, revised: INTHERESULT theappealisdismissed " and if modified.confirming theorderunderappeal dated 23.11.2014ofthelearnedCollector(Civil Supplies), Adilabad in case No.CS6/728/2014.

PresentationFilingNotice |Bail Bond |HearingOrder

22.12.2014 | 02.01.201502.01.2015 |--05.11.201518.11.2015

This Criminal Appeal is coming on before me for final hearing on 05.11.2015 in * the presence of Sri Y. Vishnu Bhagawan, Advocate for the appellant and Sri Naresh Kumar Joshi, Government Pleader for the stateand on hearing both sides and the - matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

JUDGMENT

llant filed this appeal challenging the final orders peatedby the learned

Ss, moplies) in CS6/728/2014 dated 23.11.2014 under section 6-A ‘of the 4 dities Act confiscating 100% value of the stock seized‘in favour of the

Page 1 of 5

Crl.A.No. 3 of 2015j

On the file of Pri SessionsCourt,*‘ Adilabad. Page 2 of 5

2)The brief facts of the case are as follows:

i) On 05.08.2014 the Assistant ‘SuggOfficer, Asifabad received telephonic information from the Circle Inspectorof Police, Asifabad regarding illegal storageof public distributionscheme (PDS) rice at

M/S _—Ginning Mill, Asifabadand thenthe AssistantSupply

Officer along with Deputy Tahsildar (Enforcement) Asifabad rushed to the said Ginning Mill and procured the mediators and inspected the premises. The appellant herein was sitting in front of the mill and he disclosed his name on questioning and he is the owner of the mill and engaged in cotton business besides attending hired work and then the _ revenue authorities inspected the mill and found 106 white plastic bags duly psigPDS rice at 45 to 59 kgs in each bag totaling to 50.65 quintals and those bags were stitchedwith machine and they also found 1.18 quintals of broken rice and on questioning he was unable to show any valid papers or way bills and stated that he purchased that rice from thecardholders atRs.10/+, per kg and using the same for consumption of his labour and therefore the entire stock was seized under cover of panchanama and 6-A case is filed before the learned

Collector (Civil Supplies).

3)The learned Collector (Civil Supplies) issued show cause notice under 6-B of the * Essential Commodities Act on 23.08.2014 to the appellant herein with following charge:

“1) The respondent is illegally stored the huge quantity ie., 50.65 qtls of - <

Crl.A.No. 3 of 2015

On the file of-Prl Sessions Court, Adilabad Page 3 of 5 mills in and around his mill where the ryots used to work and sell rice to him and ~ thereforehe purchased the same from them and was using the same for the labourers working under him and the rice is not PDS rice and thereforethey may be returnedto him.

~ B)The learned Collector (Civil Supplies) on considerationarrived at a conclusion that the stock seized by the Assistant, Supply Officer is PDS rice and therefore ordered for confiscation of 100% value-of the stock so seized by selling it in open auction and to deposit the value thereof to the government.

6)The appellant preferredthis appeal as against the said ordercontending that " the order of the learned Collector (Civil Supplies) is not justifiedand thereforeit is liable to be set aside and he is entitled for refund of the goods or its value in toto and therefore prayed for allowing the appeal.

7)The learned Government Pleader appearing for the state supported the order of the learned Collector (Civil Supplies) and pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.

* 8)° Now the.point that arises for consideration is:

1) Whetherthe appellant is engaged in any clandestinebusiness or illegal storageof PDS rice as contendedby theAssistantSupply

Officer, Asifabad?

2) Whether there are any grounds which are sufficient to interfere with the final orders passed by the learned Collector (Civil Supplies)?

POINTS 1 AND 2:

_9)It is the admitted case of both the parties that the AssistantSupply Officer "visited the Girtiing Mill of the appellant herein on 05.08.2014 and he found 50.65 quintajtheginning mill in 106 white plastic bags-of.45'to50 kgs each and also broken ri1.18 quintals.The panchanama was also prepared on the same the "presen ey ee

Crl.A.No. 3 of 2015:

On the file of Pri Sessions Court,@ Adilabad* Page 4 of 5 ~ admission of the appellant is noted that he purchased the same from the BPL card basat Rs.10/- per kgs. He has also given a statement under his own signature on "05.08.2014 itself stating thathe purchased the rice from the cardholders and therefore he may be excused. Therefore it is very much clear from the record that ; originally the appellant has stated the real face to the Assistant Supply Officer about the source of huge quantity of rice and broken rice kept in his ginning mill and he has no food grain licence to deal with the same.

: 10) . Itisimportant to note that each ig contains 45 to 50 kgs rice.PDS rice will _ also be supplied by the Government in 50 Kgs plastic bags and therefore the Assistant

Supply Officer has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the rice that was found in the . possession of the appellant in his ginning mill is.PDS rice supplied by the government for the benefit of poor people. His own a itself discloses that he purchased the same from the cardholders at Rs.10/- per kg. No doubt the rice was supplied by the government to the public at Rs.1/- per Ko. and even if the appellant purchased it for : Rs.10/- per kg., he will have more benefit'as he himself stated that he used to export the same to Maharashtra,Since the appellant has no food grain licence to deal with food grains or broken rice he should have properly accounted for the storage of such , huge quantity of rice with him, but he failed to do the same. On the other hand he on the date of inspection admitted that he purchased the rice from the BPL cardholders.

Though he statedin his explanation as an after thought that the goods belong to some

i Bie.

ihi téarnedcounsel for the appellant contended that as there was no evidence ot xtent’ thatthe appellant was indulged in any clandestine business the said confiscation of 100% of the stock is illegal and it is liable to be set aside. In support of

,#FfCrl.A.No. 3 of 2015

Jx qOn the file of Pri Sessions Court, Adilabad Page 5 of 5 his contention, he placed reliance on the'decisionof our Hon'ble High Court in a case » between Gurram Venkateswarluand OthersVs. Collector and DistrictMagistrate,

Prakasham District, Ongole and another’, wherein His Lordship of our Hon'ble High

Courtwhile consideringtheaBatch sof casesundersection6-AofEssential

Commodities Act held that Seizure of stock for contravention of Licensing Order and - confiscation of seized stock under section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act cannot be _ Sustained, when there is no finding that the petitioners are carrying on business of such produce or have stored the same for the purpose of business and a solitary instance of » storagewould not amount to carrying on latesand therebythe Hon'ble High Court allowed the writ petitions.These vinsalbe have no application to the case facts on hand in view of the foregoing discussion. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere a with the order passed by the learned Collector (Civil Supplies) on 23.11.2014 which is ~ challenged in this appeal. Therefore, there are no merits in this appeal and it is hence _ liable to be dismissed.Points are held accordingly.

12)IN THE RESULT the appeal is dismissed confirming the order under appeal "dated23.11.2014ofthelearned Collector(Civil Supplies),Adilabadincase

No.CS6/728/2014.

Dictated to thestenographer, transcribedby him and aftercorrection

_. pronounced by me in open court on this the 18" day of November 2015.

Om

PRL SESSIONSJUDGE

ADILABAD

12014 (2) ALD 523