THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Crl.R.C.No.844 of 2008 Dated:06th August, 2009 Between: K.Subba Reddy …Petitioner/Appellant and 1. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Vidavalur & others. …Respondents/Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.844 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 24.02.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order dated 28.05.2006 in Rc.B3/655/2004 passed by the Joint Collector, Nellore. 2. The facts in brief leading to filing of this revision by petitioner K.Subba Reddy, a fair price shop dealer, are: The Mandal Revenue Officer, Vidavalur enquired about the works pertaining to F and G works on right bank of Malidevi Drain from K.M. 2.648 to 3.400 K.M. as per instructions of the Joint Collector, Nellore. He inspected the fair price shop of the petitioner on 11.11.2004 and found 700 kgs. of PDS rice, 1300 kgs. of ISL rice and 50 kgs of MDM rice in the shop. He found certain irregularities in the distribution of rice to the beneficiaries under SGRY scheme. A show-cause notice came to be issued to him. The petitioner submitted written explanation to the show-cause. Proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act came to be initiated by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vidavalur. The Joint Collector, Nellore entertained the proceedings and framed two charges against the petitioner, which read as hereunder: “Charge-1: The respondent (1) F.P. Shop dealer has not maintained true and correct F.P. Shop accounts and violated condition 4(i) and (ii) of authorization issued under APSPDS Control Order, 2001. Charge-2: The respondent (1) F.P. Shop dealer has not issued SGRY rice without receiving the coupons from the Labour and violated condition (13) of authorization issued under APSPDS Control Order, 2001.” The petitioner submitted explanation. He took the plea in the explanation that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vidavalur did not find any variation as far as PDS rice is concerned and he was entrusted with 135.276 M.Ts. of rice meant to be issued to the workers who had done the specific works sanctioned by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad. Since no coupons were printed after 01.01.2004 by Zilla Parishad authorities, the Sarpanch, Mudivarthi village issued a letter authorizing him to distribute the rice to the workers. Accordingly he distributed the rice to the workers. The Joint Collector, Nellore, after considering the show-cause, explanation and connected record, proceeded to order confiscation of the seized quantities by order dated 28.05.2006. The petitioner challenged the order of confiscation of the seized quantities by filing Crl.Appeal No.72 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore. The learned Sessions Judge, on re-appraisal of the material brought on record, did not find any valid ground to interfere with the order of confiscation of the seized quantities and therefore, dismissed the appeal, by order dated 24.02.2007. The confiscation order passed by the Joint Collector, Nellore, as confirmed by the appellate authority is under challenge in this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner distributed the rice to the beneficiaries on the authorization given by the Sarpanch, Mudivarthi village. The learned counsel laid much emphasis on the letter, which is finding place at page. 60 of the material place, the text of which reads as hereunder: “The rice relating to R.S.G.R.Y., R.B. Road to Mudivarthi – Annareddipalem and gravel road on Malidevi Drain is with you. I have got the work relating to Malidevi started and the same is completed. The Authorities have informed that coupons are not available. I will give you the coupons after receiving the same. I request you to distribute rice to the coolies at the rate of 10 Kgs. per person. The details of such distribution of rice may be recorded in the sales register. The coolies cannot wait till the coupons are made available. If the rainy season comes, the rice will be damaged. Therefore, distribute the rice to the coolies.” 5. Had the list of beneficiaries enclosed to the letter, there is every justification for the petitioner to place reliance on it. There is no list enclosed to the letter detailing the beneficiaries. Therefore, the letter on which much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is of no avail to dispel the charges leveled against the petitioner. Indisputably, the petitioner has no written authorization indicating the names of the beneficiaries for distribution of the rice meant for SGRY scheme. The primary authority and the appellate authority considered the material brought on record in right perspective and found that the charges leveled against the petitioner are substantiated. I do no see any valid ground to interfere with the order of confiscation of seized quantities as well as recovery of mis- utilized rice. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:06th August, 2009. cs