Related News

Hyderabad: Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court set aside the confiscation and penalty orders imposed by the Nizamabad district collector in a case involving alleged illegal transportation of rice suspected to be from the public distribution system (PDS). The judge was dealing with a criminal revision case filed by Mahajan Sachin and Md Yonus, the driver of a carrier and the owner of Chandra Rice Mill, challenging the orders passed by both the collector and the appellate Sessions Court. The dispute arose from an incident on October 16, 2017, when authorities seized rice stocks from the premises of Chandra Rice Mill in Bodhan and a vehicle, suspecting the stock to be PDS rice. Acting on this suspicion, the collector ordered 100 per cent confiscation of the seized rice stocks worth ₹15.78 lakh and imposed a penalty of ₹1.5 lakh on the driver. The appellate Sessions Court reduced the confiscation to 40 per cent and the penalty to ₹20,000, prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court. The petitioners argued that there was no evidence to prove the rice was sourced from the PDS. They highlighted that rice, though a scheduled commodity under the Telangana State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2016, is not listed as an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Furthermore, they contended that the relevant Control Order regulating rice had lapsed in 2014 and was not extended thereafter, rendering the seizure and subsequent penal actions legally untenable. Upon examining the record, the judge no concrete evidence or details regarding the origin of the rice, such as any link to ration cardholders, fair price shop dealers, or other sources associated with the PDS. Justice Sridevi noted the lack of material proof to substantiate the claim that the rice was meant for public distribution. The court also observed that the confiscation order was based merely on suspicion, without credible evidence or proper reasoning from the collector. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the judge reiterated that penalties and confiscations under the Essential Commodities Act must be backed by clear and specific findings. In the absence of such evidence, the judge held that both the confiscation and penalty were unlawful. Allowing the criminal revision petitions, the judge ordered that the confiscated rice value be refunded to the rice mill owner and any penalty amount paid be reimbursed to the driver.

Source : deccanchronicle