VISHNUVARDHANA RAO Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The premises of the petitioner, who is doing rise-milling business under the name and style of "Sree Shivarma Krishna Modren Rice Mill" at Govindaraopet, Warangal, was raided by the Inspector of Police, Vigance Cell, Civil Supplies Department, Warangal, under the supervision of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance Cell), Civil Supplies Department, on 17-9-1983, and 202 quintals of Masuri Rice, 10 quantals of Surekha Rice, 44. 88 quintals of Masuri Single Polished Rice. 70. 07 quintals of brokenrice, and 574 quintals of paddy were seized, on the ground that the petitioner had exported 240 quintals of Raw Rice on 25-8-1983 through a Railway Wagon from qazipet Railway Station, having tampered with a permit given to him for export of broken-rice. In other words, the accusation is that, having obtained a permit for export of 240 quintals of broken-rice on 22-7-1983, the petitioner tampered with the same and exported raw-rice on the basis of the said permit on 25-8-1983. When the matter came up before the District Collector, Warangal, he directed the interim disposal of the seized stocks, except paddy, by his order dated 20-9-1983. The petitioner then approached this Court by way of this writ petition, on 27-9-1983. Along with the writ petition, he filed two Miscellaneous Petitions, i.e., WPMP. Nos. 11269 and 11270 of 1983. The first WPMP is for release of the seized stocks, and the second petition for stay 6f the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, under Section 6-A of the ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955. These two petitions came up before me for orders, and the following order was passed an 4-10-1983.

(2.) It is, however, stated that for some reasons, which are not clear, WPMP. No. 11270/83 was again posted before the Court on 15-11-1983. It was heard by my learned brother, Punnayya, J., who passed the following order :

(3.) When the writ petition came up before me for hearing today, Mr. D. Sudhakara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, gave up his contention that the Joint Collector being himself the complainant, cannot proceed with the enquiry, nor did he advance the contention that the District Collector is not empowered to take proceedings under Section 6-A, though it was precisely these contentions which were strongly put forward before Punnayya, J., and in view of which contentions the learned Judge directed stay of the proceedings under Section 6-A, notwithstanding the fact that, under the earlier order dated 4-10-1983, I had specifically directed that the proceedings under Section 6-A shall go on. The only contention now urged before me by the learned counsel is that, the stock now seized cannot be said to be the stock in respect of which the contravention has been committed and therefore, the seizure itself is incompetent and unauthorised, and must be declared as such. The result of the acceptance of this argument would be that the initiation of the very proceedings under Section 6-A of the ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 would become incompetent and without jurisdiction. Before, however, I deal with this contention, I must mention the fact that, in respect of the alleged tampering and illegal transport of 240 quintals of raw-rice, a prosecution has already been launched against the petitioner in a Criminal Court, which is now said to be pending.