HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1377 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment, dated 05.08.2003, passed by the Sessions Judge, Prakasam Division, Ongole, confirming the order, dated 07.01.1991, passed by the Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole, whereby the entire stock seized from out of the possession of the petitioner’s business premises was confiscated. The case in brief is that the petitioner is carrying on business in fertilizers in Komarolu Village. While so, on 01.10.1989 at about 10 am., the Inspector of Vigilence Cell, Prakasam District, Ongole surprised the said shop and found some persons carrying bags from the shop and when questioned they stated that the said urea bags were purchased by them and they further stated that the petitioner did not issue any bills for the same. Thereafter, the Circle Inspector of Vigilance Cell, on verification of the licence issued to the petitioner, by the Joint Collector to deal business with fertilizers, found that the said licence is valid up to 19.07.1990. Further, the Inspector of Vigilance found that there was shortage of fertilizers in the stock register when compared with the ground stock. In those circumstances, the entire stock was seized and the matter was reported to the Joint Collector, who, in turn, initiated the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (for short ‘the Act’) and issued a notice under Section 6-B of the Act. However, not being satisfied with explanation offered by the petitioner with regard to the said variation, the Joint Collector by his order, dated 07.01.1991, ordered confiscation of the entire seized stock. The same was questioned by the petitioner herein by filing the Crl.A.No.207 of 1998 before the Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole, who while concurring with the findings recorded by the Joint Collector, dismissed the said appeal vide judgment, dated 05.08.1998. The same is questioned in this Criminal Revision Case. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds mentioned in the appeal and prayed this Court to at least reduce the quantum of confiscation of the seized stock of the petitioner. Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the relevant material available on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner was in possession of fertilizers and was dealing in business of the same, and he could not offer a proper explanation for the variation found between the ground balance and the stock register. In fact, the authorities below not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner for the variation in the stocks, ordered confiscation. Accordingly, I see no merits in this Revision. However, as the said offence is of the year 1989, this Court is of the view that some relief can be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the said order of confiscation passed by the Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole, as was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Ongole in appeal, is modified and the confiscation of the stocks is restricted to 50%. Except the said modification, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 31st March 2011 DR