HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:318 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The revision is filed by the petitioner against the judgment passed on 28.7.2010 in Crl.A.199 of 2009 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal modifying the order passed in ECAC.No:72 of 2009, dated 23.9.2009. During the course of inspection conducted by the Grain Purchasing Assistant, Warangal along with Tahsildar (CS) Narsampet, Food Inspector, Narsampet and three mediators on 20.7.2009, the petitioner was found indulging in clandestine business by purchasing the paddy from the farmers to sell the same in the market at a higher price in violation of clause 7a (1) of the Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 and clauses 2 K and 3 of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (L, S & R) Order, 2008 and therefore, the entire ground stock was seized and the matter was reported to the District Collector, Warangal for initiation of necessary proceedings. Pursuant to the said reference, the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act had been initiated and the petitioner was served with a notice calling for his explanation. The District Collector after holding an enquiry, rejected the contentions put forth by the petitioner and ordered confiscation of 25% of the seized stock to the Government. The said order, dated 23.9.2009 was questioned by filing an appeal under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act before the Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal and the same was numbered as Crl.A.No:199 of 2009 and the learned Sessions Judge, by judgment, dated 28.7.2010, modified the confiscation of 25% to that of 12.5%. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred by the petitioner. Heard and perused the material available on record. While submitting that the stock seized from the premises of the petitioner belonged to 10 farmers of Ootai village for the purpose of storage and safety, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner has filed the affidavits of the ryots to prove to that effect, the District Collector has failed to consider the said aspect and has given the finding on mere presumption to the effect that the petitioner had managed the ryots to give the affidavits in such a manner and the said aspect has also not been considered in the appeal and the petitioner is maintaining the accounts properly and therefore, the confiscation as ordered in the appeal is excessive as the same is not proportionate to the gravity of the charge and hence, a lenient view may be taken in this regard. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the affidavits of 10 ryots in the vicinity, which were simply thrown away by the District Collector on the ground that the ryots might have been managed to give such affidavits, I feel it just and proper to take a lenient view while considering the quantum of confiscation and therefore, the confiscation at 12.5% of the seized stock is restricted to 5% only. Accordingly, the said order of confiscation passed by the District Collector, Warangal as was confirmed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Eluru in appeal, is modified and the confiscation of the stock is restricted to 5% only. Except the said modification, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada Dated: 25.2.2011 Nn HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:318 OF 2011 25.2.2011