THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.58 of 2004 (Dated: 09-02-2011) Between: K.Srinivasulu @ Vasu and another …Petitioners A n d State of A.P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P. Hyderabad ….Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.58 of 2004 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 9.12.2003 passed in Criminal Misc. Appeal No.128 of 2002 on the file of Sessions Judge, Nellore, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order passed by the Joint Collector, Nellore in Rc B 48/99, dated 31.7.2002. 2 (a ) On credible information about smuggling of paddy by the petitioners herein, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department, Nellore along with staff and mediators reached Venad Warf on 24.3.1999 and found one tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 26/B-1533 loaded with 51 bags of Jilakara Masoori variety of paddy. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell seized the vehicle along with paddy under the cover of panchanama. On the next day, he secured motorboat from the office of Wild Life Management, Tada and proceeded to Pulicat lake and found one country made boat beyond Irakkam island heading towards Sunnapu Kolumbu village of Tamilnadu. The persons sailing in the boat jumped into the lake and escaped. He seized the boat along with 70 bags of paddy under the cover of panchanama. A report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act came to be filed by him before the Joint Collector, Nellore. (b) The Joint Collector issued a show-cause notice to the petitioners herein framing a charge against them as follows:- “ The respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 with the active connivance of respondents 5 and 6 were smuggling the paddy outside the State and thereby contravened Clause 3 of the A.P.Paddy (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1987.” 3. In reply to the show cause notice, the 1st petitioner herein filed written representation. 4. The Joint Collector, after considering the explanation and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, found the explanation insufficient and thereby, proceeded to order confiscation of the seized stocks to the Government apart from imposing a fine of Rs.10,000/- in respect of the vehicle in lieu of its confiscation, by order dated 31.7.2002. 5. The petitioners herein filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Nellore assailing the order passed by the Joint Collector. The appellate authority, on reappraisal of the material brought on record, did not find any valid ground to interfere with the order of the primary authority and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the appeal, by judgment dated 9.12.2003. Hence, this revision. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no restriction with regard to movement of paddy within the State and therefore, seizure of the paddy is contrary to the rules in force in which case, the revision deserves to be allowed setting aside the order passed by the primary authority as well as the appellate authority. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the order impugned in the revision. 9. On 24-3-1999, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Nellore found one Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP 26/B 1533 with a load of 51 bags of Jilakara Masoori variety of paddy and seized the same. He also seized 70 bags of paddy on the following day from the boat, which was proceeding towards Sunnapu Kolumbu village of Tamilnadu. The explanation of the petitioners is that they raised paddy and they are entitled to sell the paddy anywhere in the State. Having taken such a plea, the petitioners failed to substantiate the same by placing any material to show that they got agricultural lands nearby the place of seizure. The primary authority as well as the appellate authority considered the material brought on record in a right perspective and proceeded to reject the explanation offered by the petitioners. I do not see any flaw in the order passed by the primary authority, as confirmed by the appellate authority. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case fails and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.09-02-2011 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.58 of 2004 (Dated: 09-02-2011)