Tati Gurusharath Yadav vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh High Court, 26 July 2026

APHC010142432025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 383/2025 Between:

TATI GURUSHARATH YADAV, S/O. GURAPPA YADAV, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

VIJAYANAGARAM STREET, PRODDATUR TOWN AND MANDAL YSR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THE TAHSILDAR, CHINNAMANDEM MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:

POPURI LAKSHMI PRIYANVITA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to set aside the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.129 of 2023 dated 03.01.2025 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Ms. Popuri Lakshmi Priyanvita, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Collector (Civil Supplies), Annamayya District, exercising powers under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the E.C. Act’), vide Ref. No. CS(2)/209/2023, dated 11.10.2023, directed confiscation of 100% of the value of the seized stock, valued at Rs.7,50,000/-, and imposed a penalty of Rs.75,000/- in respect of the seized vehicle bearing No. AP04-TW-8118, on the ground that the rice was being transported without the requisite documentation.

Respondent No.2 submitted a report under Section 6-A of ‘the E.C Act’ to the learned Joint Collector stating that 500 bags of PDS rice, valued at Rs.7,50,000/-, was allegedly being transported in a lorry from Proddatur to the State of Karnataka in violation of Clause 19(f) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. A show-cause notice under Section 6-B of ‘the E.C. Act’ was issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation contending that he had

not contravened any of the provisions of the Control Order. The driver of the lorry stated that the owner/petitioner had instructed him to load the alleged PDS rice into the lorry and transport it from Proddatur to Bangarupet in the State of Karnataka. It is alleged by respondent No.2 that the workers of the petitioner were transporting the PDS rice in the said vehicle to the intended destination. The charge framed against the petitioner was that he had contravened Clause 19(f) of the Control Order by purchasing rice meant for the Public Distribution System either from cardholders, Fair Price Shop dealers, middlemen, or other sources.

The order of the learned Joint Collector does not specify whether the seized stock was obtained by the petitioner from the cardholders after the rice had been delivered to them, or whether the petitioner diverted the rice from the Fair Price Shop itself, or procured it through middlemen before it reached the intended beneficiaries, or procured it from the MLS point or Civil Supplies godowns. Thus, the charge is vague. As stated supra, the order does not specify in any manner how the petitioner had interfered with or infiltrated the Public Distribution System. No doubt, there are no proper sale invoices or transport receipts relating to the seized rice, either before the learned Joint Collector, the learned Sessions Judge, or this Court. No such documents have been produced. However, a Bill of Supply of Exempted Goods has been filed showing that the rice was supplied by the petitioner to Vaseeulla Agro Mills. The petitioner also registered under the GST Act. However, there are no other documents to establish that the rice was purchased from farmers. No farmer

has filed any affidavit or document to establish that the petitioner had purchased rice from them. It is observed in the report submitted under Section 6-A that the petitioner had added fortified rice kernels to the seized rice. The learned Joint Collector observed that fortified rice was being supplied by the Government to beneficiaries under the PDS, MDM, and ICDS Schemes. Therefore, it was concluded that the seized rice pertained to the Government welfare schemes, and accordingly ordered confiscation of 100% of the value of the seized stock to the Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing No. AP04-TW- 8118. 6. The impugned orders of the learned Joint Collector and the learned Sessions Judge do not contain any finding that the petitioner had indulged in similar clandestine activities on any earlier occasion. Therefore, the order directing confiscation of 100% of the value of the seized stock to the Government is not proportionate to the gravity of the case. If confiscation to the extent of 50% had been ordered, the same would have met the ends of justice. Further, the penalty of Rs.75,000/- imposed upon the vehicle is also on the higher side in the absence of any similar adverse antecedents. No doubt, transportation of rice by itself does not constitute a violation, unless it is established that the rice belongs to the Public Distribution System.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of by confirming the order of confiscation while modifying the extent of confiscation from 100% to 50% and reducing the

penalty from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. The remaining 50% of the confiscated amount and Rs.25,000/- out of the penalty imposed upon the owner of the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner, being the owner of the vehicle, forthwith.

Accordingly the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Interim order, if any, granted earlier and Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 27.07.2026. JLSR

171

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.383 of 2025

Date: 27.07.2026

JLSR