IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT
SRIKAKULAM
Present:- Sri G. GOPI, Prl. District & Sessions Judge.
THURSDAY, THIS THE 3 RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
Crl.Appeal No. 19/2021
From what court the : Against the order of the Court of appeal is preferred. District Collector, Srikakulam in D. Dis SR No. 05/2019, S5, dt.29.08.2021.
Number of the case in : SR No. 05/2019, S5, dt.29.08.2021 that court Number of the appeal :CRL.APPEAL No. 19/2021
The Name and 01. Jami Satish Kumar, S/o Shanmukha designation of the Rao, Hindu, Aged about 37 years, Sri Appellants/respondents. Venkiata Kameswari Rice and Oil Mill, Krishna Nagar, D.C.C.B.Colony, Srikakulam Mandal and district.
02. Jami Shanmukha Rao, S/o late Satyanarayana, Hindu, Aged about 74 years, Sri Venkata Kameswari Rice and OLil Mill, Krishna Nagar, D.C.C.B. Colony, Srikakulam Mandal and district.\ The name and designation 01. State of A.P. represented by Tahsildar, of the Respondent/ Srikakulam. complainant.
02. State of A.P. represented through its Public Prosecutor, Srikakulam.
The law and sentence .Ordered 20% of the total stock under which it was value as fine for irregularity and as imposed in the Court of deterrent for future lapses and issued the District Collector, recorded warning, so that any future Srikakulam lapses can be viewed seriously. The respondent is directed to remit the fine amount of Rs.3,11,838/- under CS Head of acco9unt. After remitting the fine amount, the Tahsildar, Srikakulam is directed to handover the seized stock to the respondents from the custodian.
2 Crl.A No. 19/2021, Dt.03.11.2022 P.D.J. Court, Srikakulam.
Whether confirmed, DISMISSED modified or reversed if In the result, the criminal appeal modified, the is dismissed confirming the order of modification. the Court of district Collector, Srikakulam in D.Dis SR No. 05/2019 S5, dt. 29.08.2021.
Date of presentation: : 28.09.2021 Date of filing 29.09.2021
Notice issued by court to 28.10.2021 appear: Bail bonds if appellant : ….. has been let out on bail: Respondents herein :…. ordered to appear Date of hearing : 31.10.2022
Date of order :03.11.2022
This appeal came on 31.10.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.V.Seshagiri Rao, learned Advocate for the appellants/respondents and Sri M.Malleswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents/complainants, having heard both side and stood over till this day for consideration, this court do adjudge and pass the following:
J U D G M E N T
01. This is an appeal has been carried out by the appellants/ respondents under Section 374 (3) of Cr. P.C., against the order of the Court of district Collector, Srikakulam in D.Dis SR No.
05/2019 S5, dt. 29.08.2021.
The appellants herein are the respondents and the respondent No.1 herein is the complainant before the Court of
District Collector, Srikakulam in D. Dis SR No. 05/2019 S.5.
3 Crl.A No. 19/2021, Dt.03.11.2022 P.D.J. Court, Srikakulam.
02 The brief facts of the respondent/complainant is that on receipt of credible information received from Head Office of
Vigilance and Enforcement, Vijayawada, the Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Enforcement, Srikakulam went to Sri Venkata
Kameswara Rice & Oil Mill, Krishna Nagar, DCCB Colony,
Srikakulam and from there the Inspector, Vigilance and
Enforcement, Srikakulam rang him over phone at 11.00 AM on 14.02.2019 and said to attend the premises of the said rice mill.
Then the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Srikakulam, Village
Revenue Officer of Chapluram and Village Revenue Assistant of
Chapuram, Srikakulam mandal proceeded to said Rice and Oil
Mill. They themselves introduced to the Vigilance Officials and summoned the mediators and explained about the surprise their visit and requested them to act as mediators for conducting surprise inspection at the said mill.
The Inspector of Police, Vigilance along with Civil Supplies
Deputy Tahsildar inspected the rice mill along with the mediators, at the time of inspection they found one Jami Satish Kumar, S/o
Shanmukha Rao, who is the son of mill owner doing business in the said rice mill. They introduced themselves to said Satish
Kumar and informed about their surprise inspection. They asked him to produce the records like License, A & B Registers but he replied that the records are not available in the premises and on demand he replied that the mill records/registers are not possible to produce for the enquiry. After that he has shown the records 4 Crl.A No. 19/2021, Dt.03.11.2022 P.D.J. Court, Srikakulam.
available with him at the time of inspection, they are (1) Factory
License, (2) GST permission and (3)Legal Metrology certificate.
On physical verification at Rice Mill premises, the following
PDS rice was found in 17 plastic bags which contain PDS rice weighing with different weighments. After weighing all 17bags, it come to 461 KGs. At the time of inspection they also found common rice available in the mill and following are the stock found at the mill premises:
PDS RICE
1.Each 22 KG of PDS rice in 03 bags.
2.Each 20 KG of PDS rice in 06 bags.
3.Each 47 KG of PDS rice in 02 bags.
4.Each 18 KG of PDS rice in 01 bag.
5.Each 38 KG of PDS rice in 01 bag.
6.Each 23 KG of PDS rice in 01 bag.
7.Each 25 KG of PDS rice in 01 bag.
8.Each 17 KG of PDS rice in 01 bag.
9.Each 60 KG of PDS rice in 01 bag.
S.No. Branch Name Bag Total No. of Quantity Weighment Bags at the in KGs time of inspection
1.KSN Gold & Deer Each 25 KG 120 Bags 3000 Kgs
2.SVK Rice Each 25 KG 66 Bags 1650 Kgs
3.Krishna Teja Rice Each 25 KG 20 Bags 500 Kgs
4.Apple Rice Each 25 KG 11 Bags 275 Kgs
5.Camel Rice Each 25 KG 27 Bags 675 Kgs
6.Eagle Rice Each 25 KG 55 Bags 1375 Kgs
7.Sameera Rice Each 25 KG 229 Bags 5725 Kgs
8.Tractor Rice Each 25 KG 26 Bags 650 Kgs
9.Aksya Rice Each 25 KG 88 Bags 2200 Kgs
10. S5 Brand rice Each 25 KG 62 Bags 1550 Kgs
11. 666 Brand rice Each 25 KG 11 Bags 275 Kgs
12. Satya Krishna Rice Each 25 KG 12 Bags 300 Kgs
13. 24 Carets rice Each 25 KG 30 Bags 750 Kgs
14. 30 Silky rice Each 25 KG 30 Bags 750 Kgs
15. Horse rice Each 25 KG 50 Bags 1250 Kgs
16. Balagopal rice Each 25 KG 26 Bags 650 Kgs
17. TL Silky rice Each 25 KG 4 Bags 100 Kgs 5 Crl.A No. 19/2021, Dt.03.11.2022 P.D.J. Court, Srikakulam.
18. Cycle Rice Each 25 KG 72 Bags 1800 Kgs
19. Cherry rice Each 25 KG 5 Bags 125 Kgs
20. Village street rice Each 25 KG 6 Bags 150 Kgs
21. Jancy karani rice Each 25 KG 8 Bags 200 Kgs
22. Varam rice Each 25 KG 35 Bags 850 Kgs
23. Loose rice 200 KGs
24. Paddy Each 80 KG 44 Bags 3520 Kgs
25. Paddy Each 80 KG 500 Bags 40000 Kgs
26.Brawn Each 50 KG 2 Bags 100 Kgs
Stocks found in watchmen room
27. Balagopal rice Each 25 KG 29 Bags 725 Kgs
28. SLG rice Each 25 KG 17 Bags 425 Kgs
29. 666 rice Each 25 KG 10 packets 250 Kgs
30. Eagle rice Each 25 KG 15 packets 375 Kgs
31. Cycle rice Each 25 KG 93 packets 2325 Kgs
32. Unbranded loose rice Each 50 KG 4 packets 200 Kgs
When questioned Jami Satish Kumar for unauthorized stocks of PDS Rice, A &B registers and sale licence of various brands of rice, he did not give any satisfactory reply and begged pardon. He has questioned about the PDS Rice, then he replied that he is purchasing the PDS Rice from the card holders @ Rs.10/- per KG from the surroundings of Srikakulam town and after that he is filling the bags with the PDS Rice and he is selling in open market.
Thus it shows, the respondent has not maintained any records and stocks. Rice meant for Public Distribution System was purchased, sold or stored for sale/ recycling with an intention to store PDS stocks unauthorizedly for diversion into black market and also found no records/ registers for the above mentioned stocks.
Accordingly, the said rice samples collected in three cloth bags by
Sri E.V. Krishna Rao, Manager, Civil Supplies Corporation for analysis testing in Food Laboratory Visakhapatnam.
6 Crl.A No. 19/2021, Dt.03.11.2022 P.D.J. Court, Srikakulam.
Thus the respondent has contravened the provisions under
Cl. 20(g) Cl. 22 (1) of PDS Control Order 2018 Read with E.C. Act and violation guidelines for F.P. Shop Dealers as per G.O.Ms.No.15
Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS.1) Department dt.01.08.2018 and Cl.2 (H) of AP SCD (LS & R) Order, 2016. The stock seized and handed over to one Lade Chinna Gurunadham,
S/o Narasimha Murty of GST No. 37 ACNFS56519D1ZU of Sri
Venkata Ramana Rice Mill, Voppangi, Srikakulam Mandal for safe custody, in the presence of mediators for safe custody until further orders received from District Collector.
S.No. Name of the Quantity in Value of the Commodity KGs as per Seized stock Ground in Balance Rs. 01, PDS rice 461KGs 13830-00
02. Common rice 29000KGs 870000-00
03. Paddy(80KGs each) 544 Bags 674560-00
04. Brawn 2 Bags 800-00 TOTAL: 1559190.00
The total value of the seized stock is Rs.15,59,190/-.
Hence, the Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Srikakulam prayed to take action under Section 6-A of the E.C.Act, 1955 for contravening the provisions Cl. 20(g) Cl. 22 (1) of PDS Control Order 2018 Read with E.C. Act and violation guidelines for F.P. Shop Dealers as per
G.O.Ms.No.15 Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS.1)
Department dt.01.08.2018 and Cl.2 (H) of AP SCD (LS & R) Order, 2016 against the above mill owner Jami Shanmukha Rao and pass appropriate orders for confiscation of seized stock in favour of the
Government.
7 Crl.A No. 19/2021, Dt.03.11.2022 P.D.J. Court, Srikakulam.
03. Upon the complaint made by the Deputy Tahsildar (CS),
Srikakulam, the District Collector Court, Srikakulam has taken on file under Section6 (A) of the Essential Commodities Act and issued chow cause notice on03.06.2019 and framed the following charges against the respondent.
Charge No.1: Respondent being a rice miller involved in clandestine business in storing and purchasing PDS rice. No person shall be allowed to cause interruption or interfere with the process of smooth distribution of scheduled commodities under
Public Distribution System shall be treated as an abetment and be deemed to have contravened Cl. 22(1) of APPDS (control) Order, 2008, thereby committed an offence under Section 8 of the E.C.
Act, 1955.
Charge No.2: That the respondent is purchasing the PDS rice from the card holders @ Rs.10/- per kg from the surroundings of
Srikakulam town and after that he is filling the bags with the PDS rice and he is selling inopen market. Thus it shows, the respondent has not maintained any records and stocks. Rice meant for Public
Distribution System was purchased, sold or stores for sale/recycling with an intention to storing PDS stocks unauthorizedly for divert into black market and no records/registers for the above mentioned stocks and doing clandestine business as it was found by the Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Enforcement Department, Srikakulam, dt.
8 Crl.A No. 19/2021, Dt.03.11.2022 P.D.J. Court, Srikakulam.
14.02.2019 and contravened the provisions of law under Cl. 2(h) of
APSCDS (LS & R) 2016.
04. The respondent No.2 Jami Shanmukha Rao, who is the father of Jami Satish Kumar (1st respondent) submitted his explanation to the Court of District Collector, Srikakulam, denying all the material allegations in the mediators’ report and show cause notice.
He submits that they are running their rice mil for the last 20 years without any blemish record, the complainant and other officials visited their rice mill on 14.02.2019 but in their absence.
He submits that they are not purchasing the PDS Rice as alleged by the complainant, the alleged 461 bags of rice which is waste and damaged rice, as the officials have got the said 461KGs rice from the rice thotty, elevator and rubber Sheller etc., of the mill machinery in all the four corners and said 461 bags of rice which was shown by the officials in the mediators’ report and in the present subject matter of show cause notice in question cannot be useful and countable under any circumstances of the case.
He submits that with regard to the Serial Nos. 1 to 23 of the 2nd page of show cause notice, the said rice was purchased by the respondent from various traders under proper bills and records for the purpose of their business and the said rice was also noted in the records of their rice mill.
He submits that with regard to the paddy bags, they have purchased the same from the various ryots from valid vouchers and records and they have noted the same in their registers.
9 Crl.A No. 19/2021, Dt.03.11.2022 P.D.J. Court, Srikakulam.
He submits that with regard to 168 packets each of 25 KGs i.e., Item Nos. 27 to 32 as mentioned in 2nd page of show cause notice is also their mill stocks and the said stock was also entered into their records. The above said 168 bags of rice was kept in the rice mill godown within their mill premises but in the mediators’ report it was mentioned that the said stock was available in the watch men room, which is utterly false.
He submits that because of the complaint by their enemies the complainant and their other officials have visited their rice mill in their absence and every thing found correct, but for the purpose of their case only the Vigilance people created the allegations against them without any proof and record.
He submits that the complainant and Vigilance police have threatened his son by name Jami Satish Kumar and brought him to rice mill, even though he has no knowledge with regard to the business of his father.
He submits that even though the entire records of their rice mill is available in their office room of the mill and the Vigilance
Police verified the said records and found the correctness of the stock on ground and books but they have mentioned in the mediators report that the above said Jami Satish Kumar did not produce any records at the time of their inspection of the mill.
He submits that they are not doing any clandestine business in selling and purchasing of PDS rice and admittedly there is no 10 Crl.A No. 19/2021, Dt.03.11.2022 P.D.J. Court, Srikakulam.
proof and evidence to the complainant that the respondent is dealing in PDS rice.
He submits that food analysis of Regional Public Health
Laboratory opined that the sample of rice is safe and he has also not opined that the subject matter of the rice in question is PDS rice so the alleged charges of purchasing and selling PDS rice is totally false and baseless and moreover the respondent is doing business by maintaining proper records.
He submits that their rice mill was situated in Srikakulam town and in busy locality and there are so many houses and shops in the surrounding of their rice mill.
He submits that the alleged mediators’ report was drafted by the Vigilance Department at their office itself and subsequently the
Inspector of Vigilance have obtained the signatures of his son Jami
Satish Kumar on blank papers at their office only but not in the premises of mill, if really the alleged mediators report was drafted in the rice mill of respondent, certainly they would have obtained signature of that locality people only as mediators.
It is further submitted that they have not contravened the provisions of APSCDS (LS &R) 2016 and EC Act, 1955 or any other acts as alleged.
It is submitted that the Inspector of Vigilance and
Enforcement booked the present case against them for statistical purpose only even though they have not committed any offence.
11 Crl.A No. 19/2021, Dt.03.11.2022 P.D.J. Court, Srikakulam.
It is submitted that the charges levelled against them are not correct and business and that there is no prima facie against them and there are no valid and justifiable grounds to the complainant.
05. Basing on the explanation submitted by the respondents/ appellants herein and having heard both versions and upon perused the record, the Court of District Collector held that it is established that rice found unauthorizedly in the premises of the rice mill during the time of inspection for which the respondents could not explain the reasons and confessed in panachanama
before inspecting officials and that the version of the counsel for
respondents is not convinced on unauthorized rice available at rice mill and opined that the respondents have interfered and interrupted with the process of Public Distribution System and it is established that the respondents have violated the Clauses 22 (1) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 so that confiscation of 20% of the entire seizure stock gives justification in this case and accordingly passed the orders, confiscating 20% of the total stock value as fine for irregularities and as deterrent for future lapses.
06. Aggrieved by the order of the Court of District Collector,
Srikakulam, this appeal has been carried out, basing on the following grounds of appeal.
The Court of District Collector failed to see that there are no variation of stocks in between ground stock and books and if any variation, it is within the permissible limits.
12 Crl.A No. 19/2021, Dt.03.11.2022 P.D.J. Court, Srikakulam.
The Court of District Collector failed to see that the appellants are not purchasing the PDS rice as alleged by the complainant.
The Court of District Collector failed to see that there is no proof that the appellants are purchasing the PDS Rice.
The Court of District Collector failed to see that the alleged 461 KGs of rice is waste and damaged rice and the said 461KGs of rice is in the rice thotty, elevator and rubber sheller of the mill machinery in all the four corners.
The Court of District Collector failed to consider the analysis report with regard to the result of the alleged PDS rice which is important
The Court of District Collector failed to see with regard to the stock of remaining rice i.e., Serial Nos. 1 to 23 of the Second page of show cause notice which was purchased by the appellants from various traders under proper bills and records.
The Court of District Collector failed to see that the paddy bags in this case which was purchased by the appellants from various ryots under valid vouchers and records.
The Court of District Collector failed to consider with regard to the 168 packets of rice each of 25 KGs i.e., Item Nos. 27 to 32 as mentioned in the second page of show cause notice is the mill stock of the appellants and the said stock was entered into their records.
13 Crl.A No. 19/2021, Dt.03.11.2022 P.D.J. Court, Srikakulam.
The Court of District Collector failed to see the genuineness and validity of the alleged mediators’ report of the case.
The Court of District Collector ought to have dismissed the case by accepting the explanation of the appellants as APSCDS (LS &R_ Order 2016 is not in force by the time of booking of the case in question against the appellants herein.
The Court of District Collector failed to consider that the appellants given very good levy to the Government.
The Court of District Collector failed to consider that the 1st respondent herein and their officials have not verified the records and stock properly, if they considered properly then there isno question of variation.
The Court of District Collector failed to consider that the 1st respondent and other officials obtained the signatures of the 1stappelllant on the blank papers under threat and coercion only.
The Court of District Collector failed to consider that the alleged variation of stocks as mentioned in the Mediators’ Report by the 1st respondent herein is not at all correct and true.
The Court of District Collector failed to consider that there is no complaint against the appellants from anybody and moreover the alleged complaint as mentioned in the show cause notice is baseless.
The Court of District Collector failed to consider that there is no evidence that the appellants are doing clandestine business without any license and permissions.
14 Crl.A No. 19/2021, Dt.03.11.2022 P.D.J. Court, Srikakulam.
The Court of District Collector failed to consider that the alleged mediators report was not drafted in the presence of parties and also on the spot.
The Court of District Collector failed to consider that the explanation filed by the appellants herein.
The Court of District Collector without considering the records filed by the appellants herein, erroneously confiscated 20% of the total seized stock to the government and the order is baseless and without any merits.
Hence, prays to allow the appeal and set aside the order of
The Court of District Collector.
07. Heard both side and perused the record. The appellants filed memo of written arguments.
08. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
01. Whether the appellants/respondents contravened the provisions of law under Cl. 2(H) of APSCDS (LS & R) 2016 and Cl. 22(1) of APPDS (control) Order, 2008, thereby committed an offence under Section 8 of the E.C. Act, 1955?
02. Whether the order of the Court of District Collector, Srikakulam in D.Dis SR No. 5/2019 S5 dt. 29.08.2021 is sustainable under law?
09. POINTS:
At the out set it is the case of the complainants/ respondents herein before the Court of District Collector, Srikakulam that upon the credible information received from the Head Office of Vigilance and Enforcement Office, Vijayawada, the 1st respondent herein along with the Vigilance and Enforcement Officials, Village Revenue 15 Crl.A No. 19/2021, Dt.03.11.2022 P.D.J. Court, Srikakulam.
Officer and Village Revenue Assistant, on 14.02.2019 visited the rice mill of the appellants herein by name Sri Venkata Kameswara
Rice & Oil Mill, Krishna Nagar, DCCB Colony, Srikakulam, which is run by the appellants herein.
10. The Vigilance and Enforcement Department is acting to protect the interest of the public, to maintain the quality and to prevent the irregularities committed by the traders regarding the essential commodities, which are to be used for the public day by day life and regulate the conduct of the traders under the provisions of PDS Control Order 2018 R/w Essential Commodities
Act and violation guidelines for F.P. Shop dealers as per G.O.Ms.
No. 15, Consumer Affairs, Food &Civil Supplies (CS.1)Department dt.01.08.2018 and Cl. 2 (h) of APSCD (LS & R) Order, 2016.
11. The main endeavour of the Vigilance and Enforcement is to ensure the Traders to sell the quality goods to the general public in order to ensure the health for them and also control the traders not to sell the P.D.S. provisions which endangers to the public health and safety. Likewise, all the rice mills and fair price shops and also petrol bunks which come under the purview of the Essential
Commodities Act, the Vigilance and Enforcement Department always to be vigilance over the traders in the District. Likewise, in the instant case after information from the State Authorities, the complainant/respondent No.1 herein visited the rice mill of the appellants herein and found PDS rice of 461 Kgs and also found common rice, for which he has no records and registers and in 16 Crl.A No. 19/2021, Dt.03.11.2022 P.D.J. Court, Srikakulam.
total he seized the stock value of Rs.15,59,190/- from the mill premises of the appellants herein.
12. If such is the case the appellants have to maintain their rice mill within the purview of the rules and regulations under the
Essential Commodities Act and other standing orders of PDS
Control Order 2018. But in contravention of the Essential
Commodities Act and other PDS Control Order, the appellants are not maintaining the proper records as admitted by the 1st appellant/ 1st respondent Jami Satish Kumar during the inspection of the rice mill.
13. As per the statement of the 1st appellant, he admitted that no registers were available with him regarding maintenance of the stock in the rice mill and whatever the explanation regarding the alleged PDS rice of 461 Kgs, the 2nd respondent/2nd appellant herein Jami Shanmukha Rao has given the explanation before the
Court of District Collector submitting that the entire 461 Kgs of rice is waste and damaged rice and the Officials have got the said 461 Kgs of rice from the rice thotty, elevator and rubber sheller etc., of the mill machinery in all the four corners and said 461 Kgs of rice which was shown by the officials in the mediators’ report and in the present subject matter of show cause notice in question cannot be used full and countable under any circumstances of the case, is not satisfactorily explained before the Court of District
Collector why because 461 Kgs is very huge quantity and it cannot be considered as waste and damaged rice, and no prudent man can 17 Crl.A No. 19/2021, Dt.03.11.2022 P.D.J. Court, Srikakulam.
presume that the said 461 Kgs of rice was collected from the rice thottty elevator and rubber sheller etc., of the mill machinery why because every day after completion of milling of the rice, the workers in the mill used to clean the rice mill and pick up the entire rice in the gunny or plastic bags for safety storing.
14. But in the instant case the explanation for 461 Kgs of rice is damaged and waste and it is collected from thotty, elevator and rubber sheller etc. is not sustainable as rightly pointed by the
Collector of District Court why because 461Kgs of rice is not a small quantity, it is a huge quantity. If 461Kgs of rice is damaged rice, the appellant must show the same in their records/register maintained by them i.e., A. and B registers. But even the appellants failed to produce A and B registers before the complainant at the time of inspection, even they did not produce any other registers regarding the management of the stock in their rice mill.
15. Upon perused the entire stock in the mill, the complainant found 461 Kgs of rice and treated as PDS rice. May be as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants/ respondents, no public was attended and nobody came at the time of inspection who alleged to have sold the PDS rice to the appellants, is not sustainable under law. May be nobody came forward by the time of inspection that they sold PDS rice to the appellants/respondents, the people in the society generally will not come forward and 18 Crl.A No. 19/2021, Dt.03.11.2022 P.D.J. Court, Srikakulam.
involve in the unnecessary complication while the officials inspecting the rice mill. If they wish to sell the said PDS rice, they can sell the PDS rice secretly to the persons who are indulging in purchase of PDS Rice unlike the appellants/ respondents.
16. Moreover, it is further contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/ respondents that there is no any report from FSL that the rice which was alleged to have been seized by the complainant is PDS rice, generally the PDS rice will not be consumed by the public now a days and they sell the same to the persons who are carrying on clandestine business i.e., recycling
PDS rice and selling the same to the public as original rice/quality rice, is one of the clandestine business in the society now a days.
17. In several cases, it was found but likewise the same business alleged to have been carrying by these appellants/ respondents.
May be there is no any technical report before the Court of the
District Collector and even this appellate court also not found any report opining that the said 461 Kgs of rice is not PDS rice. In fact it is very difficult to a prudent man to distinguish between general rice and PDS rice, why because the PDS rice seems to be poor quality, which cannot be consumed by the middle class people and upper class people. The PDS rice only will be consumed by Before
Poverty Line People. But the middle class and upper class people who are having white ration card, may sell the PDS rice to the 19 Crl.A No. 19/2021, Dt.03.11.2022 P.D.J. Court, Srikakulam.
traders who are indulging clandestine business by recycling the rice and sell same in the open market.
18. In this case, there is no any report that 461 Kgs of rice is PDS rice. But unfortunately, the appellants failed to explain and produce the proper registers ie.., A and B registers before the complainant and further they also did not main proper record to justify their business and in the arguments the learned counsel for the appellants also not stated anywhere that they are carrying on business in proper manner and maintaining the required registers.
19. If such is the case that the seized rice is damaged rice or waste rice certainly the appellants might have produced the “A and
B” registers and other relevant registers before the complainant at the time of inspection of their rice mill. To protect the public distribution of PDS rice and to curb the practice of recycling of PDS rice and selling the same to the public it is the duty of the Officials and when the appellants/respondents indulging such business is nothing but abuse of process of law and contravening the provisions of Essential Commodities Act and also PDS Control
Order 2018.
20. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that due to apprehension of the arrest of the 1st respondent/1st appellant herein Jami Satish Kumar, he confessed before the
Inspection Authority, is also not sustainable under law. He clearly stated that it is not possible from him to produce the registers 20 Crl.A No. 19/2021, Dt.03.11.2022 P.D.J. Court, Srikakulam.
before the Inspection Authority. The said statement is suffice to
construe the case of the complainant.
21. Upon perused the entire record and also order of the Court of the District Collector, this court did not find any irregularity in confiscating 20% of the seized stock as per its order D.Dis SR 05/2019 dt. 29.08.2021. Hence, this court has no role to interfere with the order of the Court of District Collector, Srikakulam and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
22. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the Court of District Collector, Srikakulam in D.Dis SR 05/2019 dt. 29.08.2021
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected
and pronounced by me in open court, this the 3rd day of November, 2022.
Sd/- G. Gopi,
Principal District & Sessions Judge,
Srikakulam.
Copy to the District Collector, Srikakulam.
//t.c.f.b.o.//
Chief Administrative Officer, Prl. District Court, Srikakulam.
21 Crl.A No. 19/2021, Dt.03.11.2022 P.D.J. Court, Srikakulam.