HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1358 of 2010 O R D E R: The petitioner is proprietor of Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Rice & Cotton Traders, Dronadula Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District. Aggrieved by the order of confiscation of the seized stock of rice by the Joint Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam, in E.C.P. No.176 of 2007 dated 09.05.2009 passed under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (in short, the Act) and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Krishna District at Machilipatnam, in EC Appeal No. 72 of 2009 dated 30-04-2010 passed under Section 6(c) of the Act, the petitioner approached this court with this revision petition. 2. It is alleged that the Vigilance and Enforcement Officials on 14.06.2007 at 6.00 a.m. intercepted lorry bearing No. AP 26 U 1112 at Kanakadurgamma Varadhi Junction, Vijayawada and that the lorry was transporting 100 quintals of PDS rice from Praksam District to East Godavari District in 200 bags. The Joint Collector, issued show cause notice to the petitioner and 3 others calling upon them to explain the following Charges framed against them, and they are: Charge -1: The Respondents were found to be in transportation of Q.100-00 raw rice in 200 bags from Sri Vara Siddhi Vinayaka Rice & Cotton Traders, Dronadula, Prakasam District to Sri Satyanarayana Traders, Mandapet, East Godavari District without waybill and proper documents i.e, permit and without participating in Mill levy in Lorry bearing No. AP 26 U 1112 as against the lorry No. AP 05U 7729 and thus they have vi9olated the Clause 3, 3 A and 7 of the A.P.Rice Procurement( Levy) Order, 1984. Charge -2 : 200 bags of rice was found to be transported in the Lorry bearing No. AP 26 U 1112 instead of lorry bearing No. AP 05U 7729, without noting the lorry number in the way bill/permit etc., and thus the respondents have violated the clause 3,3A and 7 of the A.P.Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. Charge -3: that it was noticed that 300 gunny bags having ex- North rice stitched with label “SG Agro Foods Gehri Mandi, Amritsar District, Grade-A Raw Rice Crop Year 2006-2007, Agency: FCI/Levy, Produce of India” and remaining 170 gunny bags of Andhra Rice with label “SHRBRM, Janapadu, Mill code No. 3007, FCI Lot No.63, 2006-2007, Raw Rice Grade-A” available in the Lorry bearing No. AP 26U 1112 and thus the respondents have violated the clause 4 of the A.P.Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 and Clause 17(b) of the A.P.State P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2001. Charge -4: As the Ex-North rice is not cultivated or produced in this area and the Ex-North rice is allotted only to the F P shop dealers for the purpose of P.D.S. S.G.R.Y. and some other Government programs, it clearly shows that the miller might have purchased the rice either from the FP shop dealers or from the labour engaged for Government work and thus the Respondents have violated the clause 17(b) of the A.P.State P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2001. 3. For the said Charges and show cause notice, the petitioner filed explanation before the Joint Collector contending that out of 200 bags seized, 30 bags alone belonged to Public Distribution System (PDS) category and that rest of the rice was purchased by the petitioner from farmers and that he did not commit any violation of the Control Orders as alleged in the Charges. 4. At the outset, it may be noted that the petitioner is not a PDS dealer. He is a dealer of rice and cotton. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the Government of India in GSR 104(E) dated 15-02-2002 of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution issued under Section 3 of the Act taking out rice from the purview of the Act. No doubt, clause (6) therein is to the effect that nothing contained in this order shall affect operation of the PDS (Control) Order 2001 issued by the Central Government and orders of the State Governments issued in pursuance thereof. It is only for that reason, this court pointed out in the beginning itself that the petitioner is not a PDS dealer. Therefore, the question of the petitioner violating provisions of A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001 does not arise at all. 5. The petitioner’s counsel placed reliance on Kailash Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand [1] of the Supreme Court and Sri Sai Traders Vs. Assistant Supply Officer [2] of this court in this regard and contended that for transporting rice, no proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act can be resorted to by the authorities as rice had ceased to be an essential commodity, but it remained to be only a schedule commodity and that at best the authorities may resort to file a criminal case against the petitioner. 6. In this case, charges 1 and 2 relate to violation of provisions of the A.P.Rice Procurement (Levy) Order 1984. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that Charge No.2 cuts at particulars mentioned in Charge No.1. As per Charge No.1, the transport was being made without way bill and proper documents i.e., permit and without participating in mill levy. Charge No.2 relates to transport of rice in lorry bearing No. AP 26U 1112 instead of lorry bearing No. AP 25U 7729 without noting the lorry number in way bill/permit. Apart from the vehicle documents not being in order, there is a definite allegation against the petitioner to the effect that without participating in the levy he was transporting 100 quintals of rice (it does not matter whether it is PDS or Non-PDS Rice) in 200 bags from Dronadula village of Prakasam District to Mandapet of East Godavari District. Virtually, there is absolutely no explanation on the part of the petitioner to show that he participated in the mill levy in respect of these 100 quintals of rice which was being transported by the petitioner from Dronadula village to Mandapet in a lorry, which was intercepted at Vijayawada. 7. It is only after the petitioner delivered levy rice to Food Corporation of India and if the petitioner is a miller or dealer, he is entitled to deal with the rice as he thinks fit. In the explanation given by the petitioner to the Joint Collector, he contended that he is neither a miller or a trader but he is merely an agent. He did not disclose to whom he was working as agent. He cannot be heard to say that he is a commercial agent for any undisclosed principal. Thus, admittedly, the petitioner did not give any levey rice to Food Corporation of India. Hence, there is contravention of the A.P.Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1985 in this case. In that view of the matter, both the authorities below rightly confiscated total quantity of seized stock of rice. I see no reason to come to a different conclusion in this revision petition. 8. In the result, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 08-10-2010 Mjl/* [1] 2007(Crlr) 410 [2] 2006(ALT)758