Srinivasa Trading Company, v. The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH **** Between:

Srinivasa Trading Company, Fertilizers & General Merchants Gandhi Gunj, Kamareddy, rep., by S. Rajesham. ..Petitioner And

1. State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad and another.

..Respondents.

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 24.7.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be :: Yes/No Allowed to see the judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked :: Yes/No To Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see :: Yes/No the fair copy of Judgment?

JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.2.2013 passed in Crl.A.No.70 of 2012 by the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: On credible information about sale of fertilizers at higher price, the Mandal Agriculture Officer, Kamareddy, inspected the premises of the petitioner-M/s. Srinivasa Trading Company on 20.6.2012 and found the owner of that company selling the fertilizers to the farmers at higher rates. On enquiry, it was revealed that he had sold Gromor 20:20:0 at Rs.930/-. But the M.R.P. of the said Gromor is Rs.777.50 ps. Hence, the same was reported to the Joint Collector and the stock was seized. The Joint Collector after conducting enquiry, ordered confiscation of the seized goods. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.70 of 2012 before the Sessions Judge at Nizamabad. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. Hence, the petitioner filed this revision.

3. Heard and perused the material available on record.

4. The petitioner mainly disputed the procedure adopted by the authorities in seizing the goods and in conducting inspection. In the judgment under revision, it is clearly observed that the Mandal Agriculture Officer was appointed as Fertilizers Inspector by issuance

of a notification and therefore, his competency to inspect the company cannot be disputed.

5. Further, from the material on record, it is evident that the statement of a farmer viz., One Ashok Reddy clearly establishes that excess amount was taken for the goods sold by the owner of the petitioner-company. Further, the material on record goes to show that there are discrepancies in the bill book and stock registers. In all the above aspects, the findings of both the authorities are concurrent. Nothing was adduced by the petitioner to disprove the case of the prosecution.

6. In the above circumstances and in view of the concurrent findings of both the authorities below, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment under revision.

7. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a petty trader and therefore, the confiscation of 100% value of the seized stock may be reduced.

8. Taking into consideration the above submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the authorities concerned are directed to confiscate 25% value of the seized stock to the Government and return the remaining 75% value of the seized stock to the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated: 24th July, 2015 Nn

24.7.2014 Nn