Citations: Anantha Chander Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, 1981 Supp SCC 17: 1981 SCC (Cri) 637
Date of Judgement: 28/08/1973
Equivalent Citations: 1974 CriLJ 387
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1973
Case Type: Criminal Appeal
Petitioner/Appellant: Anantha Chander Rao
Defendant/Respondent: State of Andhra Pradesh
Bench: Honourable Justice C. Reddy
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Statues Referred: Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Sections 3, 7, 6A to 6D, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 12A, 13, 14, 15, 16; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sections 516A, 523
Cases Referred:
- Bhim Sen Vs. State of U. P.,1955 SCR (1)1444
- State v. Abdul Rasheed AIR 1967 Mys 231
Facts:
- The petitioner is a retail seller in food grains carrying on business at Tuni town in East Godavari District under a permit conceded to him by the competent authority.
- On 13-3-1973 he was shipping 94 bags of rice, each pack weighing 96 Kgs. In a truck bearing enrolment No. A. P., A 1411 to Tuni. On the way the truck was caught by the Circle Inspector of Police, Ramachandrapuram, at Ramavaram junction and the rice bags were seized by him as they were being shipped without a permit in contradiction of the Andhra Pradesh Rice and Paddy (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1970.
- That very day the seized stock was produced before the Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram. The Circle Inspector in his report mentioned to the Magistrate that seized stocks is perishable articles that might be disposed to an approved seller at an early date.
- The Magistrate passed a decree on 14-3-1973 guiding the Circle Inspector of Police to sell the seized rice sacks either to the Food Corporation of India or to the neighborhood Co-employable Society at the rates determined by the quality Inspector of the Food Corporation of India and deposit the sale proceeds in the Court under Miscellaneous Criminal Court deposition.
Issues Involved:
- Whether the order of the learned Additional Munsif-Magistrate directing the sale of the seized essential commodity is outside his jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act.
Contention of Petitioner/Appellant:
Name of the counsel: N/A
The Counsel for petitioner contended that:
- That the arrangements of Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act impliedly restricted the powers of the Criminal Court regarding removal of essential commodities for the negation of a request made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act.
Contention of Defendant/Respondent:
Name of the Counsel:
The Counsel for the petitioner contended that: N/A
- Section 7 (b) enables the Criminal Court to relinquish to the Government any property in regard of which the order has been negated or such part thereof as the Court might consider fit including any bundles, covers or repositories in which the property is found and any animal, vehicles, vessel or other conveyance utilized in carrying the property. People who abet the violation or attempt to contradict are made liable by Section 8 of the Essential Commodities Act.
Judgement:
- The Judge said that the Appellant failed to present any valuable argument. Hence the Criminal Revision case fails and accordingly dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi:
- The purpose of the section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act is not to prohibit or restrict the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts. Section 6-A no doubt confers jurisdiction on the Collector to make an order for seizure of essential commodity seized and produced before him for violation of a decree made under Section 3 of the Act.
Obiter Dicta:
- N/A
Conclusion:
The case is related to Essential Commodities Act. In this case the petitioner is a retail seller of food grains and in supplying the food grains he used some illegal means. The court gave him punishment accordingly.
Drafted by: Aditi Bharti, MM Shankarrao Chavan Law College, Pune
Edited by: Pooja Yadav, Associate Editor, Law Insider
Published On: January 24, 2022 at 21:50 IST