HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.982 OF 2010 DATE:14.07.2010 Between: Kotha Govinda Rao …… Petitioner. And: The State, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP., Hyderabad. …..Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.982 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. In this revision petition, order dated 23.03.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Krishna Division at Machilipatnam in E.C. Appeal No.151 of 2009 confirming order dated 05.09.2009 passed by the Joint Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam in E.C.P.No.118 of 2009 by which 60% of the seized paddy was confiscated under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, is under question. 2. It is alleged that on 09.06.2009, the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer, Vijaywada inspected State Warehousing Corporation Godown at Jaggaiahpet along with other officials and noticed that the petitioner stored 217 quintals of BPT variety of paddy in that Godown. For show- cause notice issued by the Joint Collector, the petitioner contended that the said paddy of 217 quintals was produced in his field and was stored in State Warehousing Corporation Godown at Jaggaiahpet. It transpired that the petitioner was having only Ac.2.00 of dry land in S.No.35/2 and Ac.2.72 cents of dry land in S.No.41/2. 3. Charges levelled against the petitioner were under Clauses 2(4) and 2(7) of the A.P.Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 and Clause(4) of the A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) order 1984. The Joint Collector and also the Sessions Judge disbelieved explanation of the petitioner and passed the impugned orders respectively. 4. The only point raised by the petitioner’s counsel in this revision petition is that the petitioner is not a ‘dealer’ within the meaning of the above said control orders and that therefore, he has not contravened any of the provisions of the said control orders. Main stress of the petitioner’s counsel is on the phrase ‘engaged in the business’ occurring in the definition of ‘dealer’ contained in the A.P.Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008. Clause 2(K) of the said control order reads as follows: “K. “Dealer” means any person engaged in the business of purchase, movement, sale, supply, distribution or storage for sale of any of the commodities specified in the schedule-I whether as a wholesaler or retailer or producer or manufacturer or exporter but except importer, whether or not in conjunction with any other business and includes his representatives or agent.” The petitioner’s counsel did not dispute the fact that the petitioner stored the said paddy for the purposes of sale. Further, undoubtedly quantity of 217 quintals of paddy stored by the petitioner is more than 20 quintals prescribed under Clause 2(4) of the said control order. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that solitary instance of storage of food grains over and above the prescribed limit will not make the petitioner a ‘dealer’ under the control order, in the absence of proof that the petitioner was engaged in the business of sale or storage for sale of the commodities stored. 5. The petitioner’s counsel placed reliance on Manipur Administration v. M. Nila Chandra Singh[1] wherein it was held while considering the Manipur Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958 as follows: “The said definition shows that before a person can be said to be a dealer it must be shown that he carries on business of purchase or sale or storage for sale of any of the commodities specified in the Schedule, and that the sale must be in quantity of 100 mds. Or more at any one time. It would be noticed that the requirement is not that the person should merely sell, purchase or store the food grains in question, but that he must be carrying on the business of such purchase, sale, or storage; and the concept of business in the context must necessarily postulate continuity of transactions. It is not a single casual or solitary transaction of sale, purchase or storage that would make a person a dealer. It is only where it is shown that there is a sort of continuity of one or the other of the said transactions that the requirements as to business postulated by the definition would be satisfied. If this element of the definition is ignored, it would be rendering the use of the word “business” redundant and meaningless. It has been fairly conceded before us by Mr. Khanna that the requirement that the transactions must be of 100 mds. Or more at any one time governs all classes of dealings with the commodities specified in the definition. Whether it is a purchase or sale or storage at any one time it must be of 100 mds. Or more. In other words, there is no dispute before us that retail transactions of less than 100 mds. Of the prescribed commodities are outside the purview of the definition of a dealer.” Under the Manipur Control Order, the prescribed limit was 100 mounds of the commodity, whereas in our State, the limit prescribed is 20 quintals. 6. Following the above decision of the Supreme Court, this Court in Satyanarayana Balkishan v. State of Andhra Pradesh[2] interpreted the phrase ‘carrying on business’ occurring in Clause(3) of the Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order, to the same effect. 7. In the case on hand, the respondent could not place any material to show that the petitioner was carrying on business or was engaged in business in sale of paddy, inasmuch as the respondent could not establish any other previous instances of storage of food grains by the petitioner in a similar fashion. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is a ‘dealer’ within the meaning of the above Control Orders. Therefore, irrespective of non acceptance of explanation offered by the petitioner to the show-cause notice issued by the Joint Collector, the petitioner is entitled to relief in this revision petition as the respondent had failed to prove that the petitioner is a ‘dealer’ within the meaning of the above Control Orders. 8. In the result, the revision petition is allowed setting aside the order of confiscation of 60% of the seized stock of paddy belonging to the petitioner; and directing return of the said paddy or its value to the petitioner. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:14.07.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.982 OF 2010 Date:14.07.2010 Gk. [1] AIR 1964-SC 1533 [2] 1971 (1) An. W.R 254