STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus BATHU PRAKASA RAO

Citation: [1976] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 608 · Decided: 07-05-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
60& 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
v. 
BATHU PRAKASA RAO 
May 7, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
Practice and procedure-Findings of fact by High Court-Supreme Court's 
interference, when called for. 
' 
Essential Commodities Act, 1955, s. 6·A. Validity of confiscation proceedings 
.1 
by Distri<:t Revenue Officer. 
r 
The respondent-rice-millers obtained permits under clause (3) of the Southern 
States (Regulation of Export of Rice) Order, 1964, for exporting "broken rice" 
from Andhra Pradesh to Kerala. but were intercepted for allegedly transporting 
"whole rice" for "broken rice". The rice was seized, and samples analysed in 
the presence of the District Revenue Officer who ordered confiscation of the esti-
mated quantity of the "whole rice". On appeal, the District Judge remanded the 
matter for giving fuller opportunity to the respondents for objecting t.o the sam-
ple analysis which was to be carried out afresh in their presence. The State's 
revisioh application against the remand order dismissed by the High Court, 
The Revenue Officer then ordered a release of 12%, and the confiscation of the 
,-emaining quantity seized, as no sample from the bags contained a minimum 
percentage of 60% of "broken" grains satisfying the test laid down in the Hand-
book on Grading Foodgrains and Oilseed. The District & Sessions Judge par-
tially allowed the respondents' appeals. 
Both sides. filed revision applications. 
The High Court decided in favour of the respondent, holding that "broken rice" 
included "whole rico". 
Allowing the appeals, the Court, 
HELD: (I) Ordinarily, this Court does not interfere with findings of fact. 
But, where the errors of logic as well as law appear to be gross and to have oc-
casioned a miscarriage of justice, the court is constrained to interfere. 
[609-] 
(2) The Revenue Officer's order releasing the seized rice to the ex!ent of 
'about 12% having become final, it should not be interfered with except to the 
F 
extent that the learned Sessions Judge added 2% more for foreis:n matter thereby 
releasing slightly more in favour of the respondent. 
[610-DJ 
G 
H 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 100-
146 of 1976. 
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
29-8-75 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Cr!. Rev. Cases Nos. 
256-302/75 and 437-483/75 respectively. 
Niren De. Attorney General for lndiq (In CrL A.100, 101 and 112 
of 1976) P.. Ram Reddy (Crf. A.102-111,and 113-145/76); P. P. Rao 
and k, J(_~ ,Deshpande for the appellants In .aU the appeals; 
Sachin Chaudhary (In Crl. A.100/76); S. V. Gupte (In CrL A.101/ 
76) T. Ramam, B. Parthasarthi 'for Respondents' in Cris. A. Nos. 101· 
105, 10'7-118 120-139 and 141-146/76. 
The Judgment of the Coun was delivered by 
.. 
' 
f 
\ • 
.. 
• 
A. P. STATE v. B. P. RAO (Beg, J.) 
609 
BEG, J. 
These appeals, by Special Leave, raise an apparently 
simple question which appears to be essentially one of fact. But, as 
the real question to be answered was not correctly posed before itself 
by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, it misdirected itself as to what 
was to be really decided by it and also how it should be decided 
according to rules of ordinary logic as well as law. 
Ordinarily, this 
Court does not interfere with findings of fact. 
But, where the errors 
of logic as well as law, discussed below, appear to us to be gross and 
to have occasioned a miscarriage of justice, we are constrained to in-
terfere. 
The crucial question to be decided may be put as follows : What 
did the respondents understand when they obtained permits for the 
despatch of "broken rice (raw, boiled)" shown in their export per-
mits? 
If the respondents understood what their permits meant, they could 
not, nnder the guise of these permits, transport any other kind of 
rice. 
It was their duty to abide by the terms of their permits, and to 
show, when proceeded against, that they did so. 
Each permit shows : quantity permitted to be sent; the duration 
of the validity of the permit; the name of the consignor; the name of 
the station from which rice was to be despatched; the means of des-
patch (shown as "by rail only"); the name and address of the con-
signee (shown as "self'); the State to which the consignment was to 
be booked (shown as Kerala State), purpose of the consignment 
(shown as trade account) . The permit was described as an "export 
permit". 
The details mentioned above were given in 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.