Skip to content


P.K. Natesa Mudali Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1972CriLJ833
AppellantP.K. Natesa Mudali
RespondentState of Andhra Pradesh
Excerpt:
.....in the office of controller, tenant shall be deemed to have committed wilful default. - 1964 and the other coarse grains like sajja, ragi and jowar governed by andhra pradesh coarse grains (export control) order......export or attempt to export or abet the export of rice from any place within a specified area to a place outside that area, or transport to any place in the border area from any place outside that area or from any place in the area to any other place outside the area. similarly. under clause 4 of the andhra pradesh coarse grains (export control) order no person shall transport to any place in the border area from any place outside that area, or from any place in the border area to any other place in that area any of the coarse grains, except under permit. a reading of the provisions shows that any transport of the goods from outside the area into the area or from the area to any place outside the area without the necessary permit is prohibited under the provisions of both the orders. as.....
Judgment:
ORDER

A.D.V. Reddi, J.

1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Sessions Judge, Chittor in Cri. A. N. 32/70 confirming the order of the District Revenue Officer. Chittor, directing confiscation of the goods belonging to the petitioner under Section 6(c)(1) of the Essential Commodities Act.

2. On 11-8-1969, the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Vigilance cell. Civil Supplies, Chittor found a lorry M. D. J. 2550 at Balijakandriga hamlet of Krishnaiammapuram in the border area of Andhra Pradesh, proceeding towards R. K. Pet of Tamilnadu. On detaining the lorry he found that it was loaded with 4.30 quintals of Sajia 18 quintals of ragi 1-74 quintals of Jowar and 4-50 quintals of paddy. As they had no permit for transporting food-grains or a permit for taking them to Tamilnadu. The Deputy Superintendent of Police considered that there was violation of Clause 3 (a) of the Southern States (Regulation of Export of Rice) Order. 1964 and Clause 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Coarse Grains (Export Control) Order 1965, both punishable under Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act and seized the goods and laid information before the District Revenue Officer for confiscation of the goods as per the provisions of Section 6(c)(1) of the Essential Commodities Act. The owner of the goods one P. K. Natesa Miudali claimed that the seizure was a mile away from the Andhra Pradesh State, that he is an agriculturist, that the transport of foodgrains was from a place in Tamilnadu i.e., Proddaturpet. to another place, Ammur in North Arcot District also in Tamilnadu at a distance of 20 miles from Athimanjeripet and therefore no offence has been committed. Both the grounds have been held against him and there was an order directing confiscation. This was confirmed by the District Judge in Appeal. Hence this petition.

3. The contention that the lorry was stopped and the grain was seized about a mile away from the border in Andhra Pradesh is not now Dressed. It is only urged that as the goods were being carried from one place to another place in Tamilnadu and were only pas-sine through a certain area in Andhra Pradesh while in transit, no offence is committed.

4. The fact that the lorry was stopped at Balijakhandriga in Andhra Pradesh State while it was proceeding from Proddaturpet in Tamilnadu to Ammur in North Arcot district also in Tamilnadu is not now in dispute. The contravention is said to relate to paddy, governed by the Southern States (Regulation of Export of Rice) Order. 1964 and the other coarse grains like Sajja, Ragi and Jowar governed by Andhra Pradesh Coarse Grains (Export Control) Order. 1965. Under clause 3 of the Southern States (Regulation of Export of Rice) Order, no person shall export or attempt to export or abet the export of rice from any place within a specified area to a place outside that area, or transport to any place in the border area from any place outside that area or from any place in the area to any other place outside the area. Similarly. under clause 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Coarse Grains (Export Control) Order no person shall transport to any place in the border area from any place outside that area, or from any place in the border area to any other place in that area any of the coarse grains, except under permit. A reading of the provisions shows that any transport of the goods from outside the area into the area or from the area to any place outside the area without the necessary permit is prohibited under the provisions of both the orders. As pointed out in In re Govindrai (1966) Mad LJ (Cri) 761 'Transport' means transport from the starting point to the ultimate destination and merely passing through a place in the course of journey does not amount to transporting to that place. While 'Export' is defined in both the provisions as taking from any place within the State of Andhra Pradesh, to another place outside. 'Transport' has not been defined. But the intendment of both the provisions appear to be prohibition of either importing into any area of Andhxa Pradesh from outside or exporting from any place in the State to outside the area and the transport involved therein and not the mere transport through the area from any part outside Andhra Pradesh to another part outside the State. Baliiakhandriga hamlet of Krishnajamunapuram within the State of Andhra Pradesh, appears to be an enclave surrounded on all sides by Tamilnadu territory and therefore the transport of the foodgrains from Proddaturpet in Tamilnadu to Ammur again in Tamilnadu necessitated passing through this enclave. As it is found that grains sought to be confiscated were only in transit and had to pass through the Andhra Pradesh State area, such movement without permits cannot offend the provisions of either of the orders pointed out above. Therefore, the grain cannot be directed to be confiscated.

5. In the result, the order of both the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Sessions Judge are set aside and the grains are directed to be delivered to the party from whom they were seized, if sold the money realised will be paid to the petitioner.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //