THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.151 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioners/appellants/Respondents 1 & 3 challenging judgment dated 12.11.2003 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy, in Criminal Appeal No.106 of 2003, whereby and whereunder order of confiscation of entire seized stocks and vehicle bearing Registration No.AP 27/T.5488 in favour of the Government under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, passed in Case No.CSA.No.1/2002 dated 10.04.2003 by the Joint Collector (CS), Medak at Sanga Reddy, was confirmed. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows: On the intervening night of 24/25.12.2001 in the limits of Chiragpally, the Vigilance and Enforcement Officials under the supervision of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Task Force, Hyderabad, conducted vehicle checking and intercepted a lorry bearing No.AP 27 T 5488, belonging to the 2nd petitioner herein, with a load of rice and, having found some irregularities, the same were sent to the Assistant Manager, Technical, Civil Supplies Corporation, Ranga Reddy District, for analysis. On the basis of a certificate issued by the analyst that the rice found in the lorry was the rice stored in a Government godown, and also statement of the driver of the vehicle to the effect that the rice in the lorry was the rice for food-for-work scheme being brought from the Food Corporation of India and the same being loaded into the lorry at the instance of the 1st petitioner herein in order to send to black market in the State of Maharashtra, the Vigilance & Enforcement Inspector, Task Force, Hyderabad, lodged a report before the S.H.O., P.S.Chiragpally. The case was registered in Crime No.78 of 2001 and seized the lorry bearing No. AP 27 T 5488 along with 100 quintals of rice loaded in it. The driver of the lorry was arrested and produced before the Court and sent for judicial custody. After the completion of the investigation of the case, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Task Force, Vigilance and Enforcement, Hyderabad, filed a report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (for short ‘the E.C.Act’) before the Collector (CS), Medak at Sanga Reddy, for the confiscation of the seized stock in favour of the State Government after enquiry under Section 6-A of the E.C.Act. On the basis of the report filed under Section 6-A of the E.C.Act, the Collector (CS), Medak at Sanga Reddy, issued show cause notice under Section 6-B of the E.C.Act to the petitioners herein calling upon them as to why the seized stock and the offending lorry should not be confiscated to the State. In response to the said show cause notice, the 1st petitioner herein filed his written explanation through his counsel. However, having not satisfied with the said explanation, the Joint Collector who examined the matter later, by his order dated 10.04.2003, ordered for the confiscation of the entire seized stocks and vehicle in favour of the Government with an option to the 2nd petitioner herein/owner of the vehicle to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of the confiscation of the lorry. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners herein preferred the Criminal Appeal No.106 of 2003, whereby the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy, on the consideration of the material available on record, confirmed the order under appeal by his judgment dated 12.11.2003, and aggrieved by that, the petitioners/respondents 1 & 3 have preferred the present criminal revision case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the order in Case No.CSA.No.1 of 2002 passed by the Joint Collector, Medak at Sanga Reddy. It is the contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioners- respondents 1 & 3 that correspondingly the respondents 1 & 3 along with two others were tried in C.C.No.105 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Zaheerabad, for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Section 7 of E.C.Act, and they were acquitted of the charges therein and, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Sri Krishna Oil and General Merchants and Commissions Agents, Ravulapalem v. State of A.P.[1], the respondents 1 & 3 are entitled for the return of the seized stocks or its value. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision. The point for consideration is whether the order dated 10.04.2003 passed by the Joint Collector, Medak at Sanga Reddy in CSA No.1/2002, and the judgment dated 12.11.2003 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy, in Crl.A.No.106 of 2003, are liable to be set aside or sustainable and the paddy/rice or its value is to be returned/paid to the revision petitioners/respondents 1 & 3. POINTS: I have gone through the record and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/respondents 1 & 3. In Sri Krishna’s case referred to above, it is held as under: “Where a prosecution under Section 7 of the Act for contravention of an order under Section 3, ends in acquittal, the satisfaction recorded by the Collector under Section 6-A in respect of the alleged contravention stands annulled or obliterated by the finding of the Criminal Court that there was no contravention committed. Consequently, the owner of the essential commodity is entitled to the return of the essential commodity in specie or if converted into money, the return of the money with reasonable interest under Section 6-C (2) of the Act.” The judgment referred to above is very much applicable to the present case. Hence, relying on the judgment referred supra, the order passed by the Joint Collector and the judgment passed by the appellate Court are to be set aside. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the order dated 10.04.2003 passed by the Joint Collector, Medak at Sanga Reddy, in C.S.A.No.1 of 2002 as also the judgment dated 12.11.2003 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy, in Crl.A.No.106 of 2003, and the seized stocks or its value shall be returned/paid to the revision petitioners/respondents 1 & 3. ___________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J 14.07.2011 v v [1] 1984 Cri.L.J.173