ARVAPALLI KOTIRATNAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is contravention of the conditions of a Licence issued under the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964(hereinafter referred to as the order) contravention of the order itself, so that it becomes punishable under the penal provisions of the Essential Commodities Act? We have to answer this question now.

(2.) A. D. V. Reddy and Ramachandra Raju, JJ. answered this question in the negative in their judgment dated 17/07/1970 in Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 585, 679 and 874 of 1969, When this revision case came up before Ramachandra Raju, J. he felt a doubt about the correctness of the view taken by A. D. V. Reddy, J. and himself. He accordingly directed the matter to be posted before a Full Bench. It was however, referred to a Division Bench of Sambasiva Rao and Ramachandra Raju, JJ. and they by their order dated 13/12/1973 referred it to a Full Bench. It may be noted that Chinnappa Reddy, J. also doubted the correctness of the opinion of the Division Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 514/70(dated 28/07/1971).

(3.) The petitioner is a partner in an enterprise which does business in dhals and other cereals in the name of Sri Venkateswara Dhal Company. It does its business in Narasaraopet town in Guntur District. A Sub-Inspector of Police belonging to the vigilance cell inspected the godowns of the company and verified its stocks on 27-11-1971. He found out not only larger stocks of dhal than those mentioned in the accounts but also that they were stocked in unauthorised godowns. Thereupon, he seized the stocks. He submitted a report to the Collector for action under Sec. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. The District Revenue Officer, who is authorised to deal with these matters called for an explanation under Section 6-B of the Act from the petitioner and after examining the explanation found that the petitioner was stocking Foodgrains in unauthorised godowns in violation of the conditions of the licence and so directed confiscation of the stocks. An appeal to the Sessions Judge, Guntur, who is the judicial authority appointed by the State Government under Section 6-C of the Act for hearing the appeals, was unsuccessful. This revision case is against the dismissal of the said appeal.