THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1559 OF 2003 ORDER: 1. The Inspector of Police VC CSD, Medak at Sangareddy inspected the business premises of the petitioner on 29.07.2000. when asked for licence, the petitioner could not produce any licence and according to him he took the said shop on monthly rent of Rs.400/- and is conducting business in paddy by purchasing the same in small quantity from the farmers of Jagdevpur and selling the same in heavy quantity after procurement to the rice millers at Siddipet and Gajwel at higher rates for pecuniary gains without any licence. The said statement made by the petitioner was recorded and the entire stock was seized in the presence of mediators and thereafter the same was reported to the Joint Collector for initiation of appropriate proceedings. Pursuant thereto the Joint Collector at Medak issued a notice under section 6 A of the Essential Commodities Act to the petitioner and after explanation being submitted by the petitioner, the Joint Collector conducted a detailed enquiry into the matter and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is carrying on business clandestinely and accordingly ordered confiscation of 50% of the seized stock. Petitioner questioned the same by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.183 of 2001 and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Medak while confirming the order passed by the Joint Collector, dismissed the said Criminal Appeal by his judgment dated 11.08.2003. The same is questioned in this revision. 3. Heard. 4. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an agriculturist having 10 acres of land and the said stock that was seized from his possession is his own produce and as such he does not require any licence. According to him, simply because there are huge stocks, no presumption can be raised saying that he is carrying clandestine business. 5. In the light of the said submissions this court looked into the orders passed by the Joint Collector as well as the learned Sessions Judge. The stock was seized from the house of one Mohd. Hafeez Sab of Jagdevpur where the petitioner was conducting business. The said stock is paddy but not rice. If it is a fact that the petitioner owns 10 acres of land nothing prevented him from producing documentary proof to establish that he is an agriculturist and he owns such an extent of land. When once it is the contention of the petitioner that it is his own agricultural produce, he should have produced the required documentary evidence to establish that he owns agricultural lands and that the seized/confiscated stock is the produce derived from out of his agricultural land. In the absence of any documentary evidence by merely saying that he is an agriculturist and that the seized stock is his agricultural produce is of no consequence. In fact this aspect was dealt with by both the authorities below in holding that the petitioner is doing clandestine business. In fact the order is confiscation of only 50% of the seized stock. 6. Hence, I see no merits in this revision and accordingly the same is dismissed. -------------- 26.08.2010 Kvsn