HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.123 of 2004 ORDER: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vigilance Authorities, Civil Supplies Department, West Godavari District, Eluru on credible information inspected the house-cum-godown of the petitioner on 05.06.2000 and, during the course of physical verification of the ground stocks, it was found that the petitioner had stored 949 quintals of paddy worth Rs.5,21,950/-. As the said stock was huge and the petitioner was not having any valid licence to possess such huge stock, the entire stock was seized and the matter was reported to the Collector for initiation of necessary proceedings. Pursuant thereto, the Collector initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and issued notice to the petitioner under Section 6-B of the Act. An explanation was offered, but as the same was not convincing, the Collector, by his order dated 02.12.2000, ordered confiscation of 50% of the stock seized. The said order was questioned by filing an appeal in CMA.No.10 of 2001 before the Principal District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru. By order dated 21.11.2003, the learned District Judge while holding that the finding arrived at by the Collector was correct, however, reduced the confiscation from 50% to 25%. The order of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, in CMA.No.10 of 2001, dated 21.11.2003, is challenged in this revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon this Court stating that the petitioner being an agriculturist, having an extent of Ac.34.77 cents of land and cultivating another extent of Ac.20.00 on lease, in total of Ac.54.77 cents of land, possession of 949 quintals of paddy cannot be said to be unauthorized. He further contended that, even if it is accepted that the petitioner was in possession of huge stock, as it is a solitary instance, the Courts need not take a serious view and may direct release of the seized stock. Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 6-B of the Act, the petitioner offered his explanation stating that he is having a total extent of Ac.34.77 cents of land and is cultivating another extent of Ac.13.00 by taking on lease. However, the petitioner had failed to produce the documentary evidence such as pattadar pass books and adangals in support of his claim. Further, at the time of inspection, if really it was a fact that the petitioner was in possession of such huge extents of lands, nothing prevented him from making mention that the stock was his agricultural produce. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire produce, which was seized by the authorities, was his agricultural produce having derived from his own agriculture cannot be accepted. In so far as the second contention that possession of huge stock is a solitary instance is concerned, it applies only to the agriculturists who are not carrying on business. In the present case, there was admission by the petitioner to the effect that he was a commission agent and was carrying on business without any valid licence. In these circumstances, the contention that possession of huge stock is a solitary instance and that the said stock need not be confiscated cannot be countenanced. Hence, I see no merits in this revision. However, as the Court below has taken a lenient view and reduced the confiscation to 25%, this Court is of the view that further lenience should be shown and, accordingly, the confiscation is reduced to 10%. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Date:07.12.2010 usd