THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.278 OF 2009 ORDER: The revision is filed against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.279 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, where-under the conviction of the accused in C.C.No.301 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kothapeta, East Godavari District, was confirmed. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01/02.12.2005 at about 3.45 A.M., Excise Police of Kothapeta said to have stopped the Ambassador Car bearing No.AP 5 7564, in which the accused were travelling and by securing the presence of the mediator, they checked the car and found four plastic tins containing 180 ml., of white petrol. On the basis of it, the property was seized and a case in Crime No.172 of 2005 was registered and the property was sent for analysis. After investigation charge sheet was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kothapeta for the offence under Section 3 of the A.P. Petroleum Products Order, 1980 (for short, ‘Order’) and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. After appearance of the accused, they have been questioned and they pleaded not guilty. 4. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 and M.Os.1 to 9. 5. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has accepted the prosecution case and accordingly convicted the accused and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and also pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for three months. Against the same, accused preferred an appeal and the appellate Court modified the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of six months to Simple Imprisonment of six months keeping the fine clause intact. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 6. The point for consideration is whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below is legal and sustainable? 7. POINT: The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contends that the clause 3 of the Control Order is not applicable since it is not the business done by a dealer for obtaining a licence and if at all any offence under the A.P. Petroleum Products order is committed, it can only be under Section 26(2) of the said Order, where-under the transportation of the petroleum products is prohibited without permit. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, it clearly goes to show that the accused persons are liable for prosecution if at all for violation of clause 26(2) of the Order. But, however, as can be seen from the Section 33 of the said Control Order, it is as follows: “No person shall be prosecuted for contravention, attempt to contravene or abet the contravention of any of the provisions of this Order or of the terms and conditions of licence/permit coupon issued to him under or the direction issued by the Government/Commissioner/Licensing Authority except with the previous sanction of the Collector concerned”. 8. In this case, there is evidently no material to show that sanction was taken from the Collector for prosecution for violation of the said Control Order. In the absence of such allegations and material, the conviction and sentence cannot be sustained and consequently the revision is to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner and the fine amount shall be refunded. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:16-12-2011 INL