IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1246 OF 2004 BETWEEN: Ganesham Venkata Rama Reddy Prop. of Sri Seetharama Fertilizers. …. Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1246 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), is filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 19-03-2004 in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kadapa, whereunder and whereby, the order of the Joint Collector dated 21-02- 2002 in Ref.No.I (2)/4855/99, was confirmed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the revision case may be stated as follows: The Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Kadapa lodged a complaint before the Joint Collector, Kadapa alleging that on 17-11- 1999, the Vigilance Police inspected the business premises i.e. M/s. Sri Seetharama Fertilizers, for which the petitioner was the proprietor and transacting the business. On verification, it was found that the licence was valid upto 08-10-1998. The Vigilance Police also verified the stock books with reference to the ground stock and found shortage of certain bags of fertilizers and also excess stock of 113 bags of Godavari DAP in the shop. The petitioner failed to exhibit the stock – cum-price list. Therefore, the police seized the stock and handed over the same to a proper person for safe custody. When the complaint was lodged before the Joint Collector under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, it was taken on file. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, for which he filed an explanation stating that on the date of inspection, he was unloading the fertilizer bags that were purchased from Sri Rama Fertilizers, Khajipet and there was no scope or possibility for him to note down the same in the stock register and that due to ill health, he could not enter the position of the stock in the register and that licence is valid as on the date of inspection. 3. After considering the material on record, the learned Joint Collector found that as seen from the seizure report, there was excess stock of 113 bags of Godavari DAP, which has not been accounted for and the price list has not been exhibited, that there was no valid licence; and accordingly ordered for confiscation of 60% of the seized stock to the State. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order of confiscation. Challenging the same, this revision is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the date of inspection by the Vigilance Police, the stock was being unloaded and after unloading, the stock received would be entered in the concerned register; that due to ill health of the petitioner for about two weeks, the registers have not been maintained properly; that there was valid licence renewed upto 07-10-2000 and therefore, the petitioner has not violated the control order. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned judgment. 5. The learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the concurrent findings of the Courts below need not be interfered with in view of the fact that they are based upon proper appreciation of material on record. Hence, she prays to dismiss the revision. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the findings of both the Courts below are correct, legal and proper ? 7. There cannot be any dispute that revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 IPC are truncated one. Unless it is shown that any one of the findings of the trial Court or appellate Court is perverse or not based upon any evidence or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or admissible evidence is overlooked, ordinarily, this Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 8. The inspection made by the Vigilance Police in the shop of the petitioner on 17-11-1999 is not in dispute and the verification of fertilizer bags with reference to the stock register is also not in dispute. On verification, excess stock of 113 bags of Godavari DAP was found. Similarly, 30 bags of Nagarjuna DAP, 8 bags of Nagarjuna Potash, 40 bags of 17:17:17, 10 bags of Super (Single Phosphate) and 58 bags of Nagarjuna Urea were found to be short when compared the ground stock with the stock register. Therefore, the Vigilance Police seized the stock. With regard to excess stock of 113 bags of Godavari DAP, the petitioner contended that they were purchased from Sri Rama Fertilizers on the previous day and while they were being unloaded, the inspection was conducted and therefore, there was no scope of possibility for the petitioner to note down the position of the stock in the stock register. But, there is no material produced by the petitioner to show that he purchased 113 bags of Godavari DAP on the previous day or that he was got unloading the bags on 17-11-1999. Therefore, the explanation was not at all proper. 9. Similarly, the petitioner was not maintaining the stock register properly. Because of improper maintenance of stock register, there is lot of variations in the stock register when compared with that of the ground balance. Even the petitioner has not disputing the same. His contention is that he was not well. He must show that during his ill health, he could not be in a position to transact the sale of fertilizers. Similarly he has not produced any licence renewed as on the date of inspection. Therefore, the petitioner has violated the fertilizer control order. The impugned order needs no interference in view of the fact that both the Courts below, on proper appreciation of evidence, rightly ordered confiscation. 10. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 19-03-2004 in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kadapa. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J June 24, 2010 KTL