HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1677 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: The revision is directed against the judgment-dated 19.11.2009 made in Crl.A.No.22 of 2008 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Anantapur. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 6.10.2007 at about 7 p.m., the Inspector of Vigilance and Enforcement, Anantapur along with M.R.I.(I) Gooty and others intercepted one Tanker lorry bearing No. AP 02 T 5661 at National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC), which is located at a distance of about 2 kms. from Gooty town. They found one B. Nagaraju (A1), resident of Guntakal and the cleaner Boya Ramanjaneyulu (A2) of the same town and Akula Prasanth of the same town in the vehicle. On enquiry it was revealed that the tanker is loaded with 12000 litres of PDS BD K. Oil, on the instructions of the petitioner (A3) to Pyapili of Kurnool District to unload the kerosene and as per the instructions of petitioner-A3, they have taken A. Sreekanth in the vehicle. Thus, having found the petitioner and others indulging in clandestine business in contravention of Clauses 3 of APPP (L& RS) Order, 1980, the entire stock was seized and the matter was reported to the Joint Collector for initiation of necessary proceedings. Pursuant to the said reference, the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act had been initiated and a notice was served on the petitioner and others calling for explanation. The Joint Collector, Anantapur, after holding an enquiry, rejected the contentions put forth by the petitioner and others and ordered confiscation of the value of the seized stock of 12000 litres of PDS Blue kerosene oil worth Rs.1,12,560/- to the Government. The said order, dated 14.03.2008 was questioned by filing an appeal before the Sessions Court, Anantapur, under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act and the same was numbered as Crl.A.No.22 of 2008 and the learned Sessions Judge, by judgment, dated 19.11.2009, confirmed the order of the Joint Collector. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred by the petitioner. Heard and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein is disputing the very interception and seizure of he PDS BD K. Oil in the presence of panchayatdars and as such, in the explanation offered by him, he categorically requested the Joint Collector to afford an opportunity to cross-examine the panchayatdars, but the said aspect was not considered either by the Joint Collector or by the Sessions Judge in the appeal. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vs. Srirama Krishna Rice Mill[1] wherein it is held that “Cross examination not necessary where reliance is only on accounts prepared by a person-But, it is necessary where reliance is on reports alleging tampering or pilferage-Opportunity to look into the documents on which the adjudication is proposed may be granted to the consumer before asking for cross examination” In the instant case, the very approach of the petitioner is that he is deprived of the opportunity to cross examine the panchayatdars before passing the order of confiscation. When the petitioner is questioning the very interception etc., and asking for cross-examination of the panchayatdars, the Joint Collector ought to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the said panchayatdars. Section 6 B of the E.C. Act makes it clear that reasonable opportunity shall be given to the person from whom the stocks are seized. Of course, reasonable opportunity does not include cross-examination in a routine manner. When the petitioner specifically pleaded and requested the Joint Collector for affording an opportunity to cross-examine the panchayatdars, the said request was not acceded and therefore, the same is amounting to the violation of the principles of natural justice. In these circumstances and in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court (Citation 1 supra), I feel that it is a fit case wherein the matter can be remitted back to the original authority for fresh disposal after giving an opportunity to the parties concerned. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the orders impugned in this revision i.e., order of the Joint Collector as well as the judgment of the Sessions Judge, are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Joint Collector for fresh enquiry after affording an opportunity of cross-examining the panchayatdars, in whose presence, the interception and seizure are alleged to have been taken place. __________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada Dated: 29.3.2011 Nn HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1677 OF 2010 29.3.2011 [1] (2006) 3 SCC 74