HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.496 of 2002 DATE:08.04.2010 Between: Eskala Venkateswarlu … Petitioner and The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Of A.P., Hyderabad … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.496 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This revision is directed against the judgment dated 06.06.2001 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, in Crl.A.No.90 of 2000. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 29.01.2009 the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department, Kurnool, along with his staff inspected the shops of the petitioner herein, who is doing business in seeds, situated in door No.17/107-A on K.G. Road, Nandikotkur, and door No.17/140-B, Subbaraopet, Nandikotkur, and having found variation in the stock position, he seized 26 varieties of seeds worth Rs.1,10,525-50 ps. from the premises bearing door No.17/107-A and 8 varieties of seeds worth Rs.52,110/- from the premises bearing door No.17/140-B. Subsequently, on the basis of the report of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, the Joint Collector initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, and after holding an enquiry, he came to the conclusion that the petitioner is carrying clandestine business, and accordingly, ordered confiscation of 20% of the seized stocks to the Government and release of 80% of the seized stocks to the petitioner, by an order dated 29.12.1999. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.90 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, who allowed the appeal in part, by reducing the quantum of confiscation from 20% to 10%, by judgment dated 06.06.2001. The same is questioned in this revision. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department, Kurnool, inspected two shops of the petitioner, and in one of the shops, there were discarded seeds and even the same was seized by the authorities. If the stock of discarded seeds is excluded from the total seized stock, the remaining seized stock is within the permissible limit. 5. In fact, this aspect was gone into by the lower appellate court, and taking into consideration the same, it has taken a lenient view and restricted the confiscation of seized stock from 20% to 10%. In my considered view, the said finding does not warrant any interference of this Court. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 8th April, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.496 of 2002 (Dismissed) 8th April, 2010 CBS