THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1843 OF 2010 ORDER: 1 The petitioners herein are rice millers and on 13.05.2009 the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer, Warangal along with mediators surprised their mill premises and when questioned for production of licence to carry on business in food grains and the relevant registers etc., they failed to produce the same. Pursuant thereto the officials verified the ground stock and found 498 bags of Grade A Paddy of 1010 variety (70 Kgs each), 199 bags of Sona Masoori Paddy (70 Kgs each), 33 bags of Sona Masoori rice (50 kgs each) and 20 bags of Broken rice (50 kgs each) all worth Rs.4,85,068/-. As the petitioners failed to produce the licence to carry on such business and as the books of accounts are not maintained properly, the entire stocks were seized and the matter was reported to the Joint Collector, Warangal for initiation of necessary proceedings. Pursuant thereto the Joint Collector Warangal issued notice to the petitioners under section 6 B of the Essential Commodities Act for which the petitioners offered a detailed explanation. However, as the said explanation was not satisfactory, the Joint Collector after holding an enquiry, by his order dated 12.06.2009 ordered confiscation of 85% of the stock which was seized on 13.05.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached the District Judge, Warangal and filed Criminal Appeal No.111 of 2009 and the learned District Judge at Warangal vide his judgment dated 26.07.2010 while concurring with the findings arrived at by the Joint Collector and dismissing the said appeal, however, reduced the said confiscation of the stocks from 85% to 30%. The same is questioned in this revision. 2 The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no need of paying any mill levy to the Government as no targets were fixed and in fact the licence and other documents were produced before the Joint Collector during the course of enquiry and according to him it is only on the ground that mill levy is not paid, the said orders have been passed. 3 I am unable to appreciate the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they need not pay mill levy. If really it is a fact that they need not pay any mill levy, it is not known why they have paid mill levy for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08. From the record it is clear that for the year 2006-07 the petitioners paid mill levy of 1200 quintals and for the year 2007-08 they paid mill levy of 1800 quintals. When once mill levy has been paid for the previous years, it shall be construed that the petitioners shall pay mill levy for the relevant period also. But so far as the year 2008-09 is concerned, apparently the petitioners have not paid any mill levy. The said non-payment of mill levy, in my considered view, definitely attracts the provisions of the A.P. scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 and it can definitely be said that there is a contravention of the provisions of the said control Order. 4 Hence I see no merits in this revision and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, though this court is concurring with the findings arrived at by both the authorities below the said confiscation is reduced from 30% to 15%. If the stocks are already sold, the balance 15% of the value of the confiscation shall be ordered be released in favour of the petitioners. ________________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 20th October 2010 Kvsn