KRISHNA OIL AND GENERAL MERCHANTS AND COMMISSIONS AGENTS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that prominently presents itself for decision in these Criminal Revision Cases is :

(2.) The case first came up for hearing before Jayachandra Reddy, J. The learned Judge doubted the correctness of the decision in Somisetti Ramanaiah v. District Supply Officer, AIR 1979 Andh Pra 19, and felt that the course of judicial authority on the question was unsteady. Having regard to the importance of the issue involved, and the consequent necessity for an authoritative pronouncement of the question, he referred the case for a Division Bench. So, the revision cases have now come up before us.

(3.) The facts giving rise to the question are neither disputed nor complicated : The petitioners are dealers in essential commodities. Proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act were initiated against the petitioners for contravention of an order made under S. 3 of the Act. The Collector, after proper enquiry under Section 6-B of the Act ordered confiscation of the seized stocks. On appeal the judicial authority upheld the order of confiscation passed by the Collector. Aggrieved against the said orders the petitioners are now seeking to revise the order passed by the judicial authority. The petitioners were also prosecuted before the Criminal Court under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act for contravention of an order made under Section 3 of the Act. The Criminal Court acquitted the accused. When the criminal revision case came up for hearing it was contended before the learned Judge basing reliance on Section 6-C(2) of the Act, that the petitioners were entitled to return of the seized stocks or the value thereof in view of the acquittal of the petitioners.