HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.911 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioners against the judgment, dated 12.01.2004, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.156 of 1999 by the Sessions Judge at Ongole. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Circle Inspector of Vigilance Cell, CSD, Ongole, 1st respondent herein, surprised the godown of the petitioners herein on 04.02.1999 and found that the petitioners are doing business in pulses without proper licence and seized 65 quintals of Blackgram under cover of panchanama for contravention of Clause 3 of the APSCD (L & D) Order, 1982 and Clause 3 of the A.P. Prevention of Hoarding of Food Grains Order, 1973 and later filed a report before the Joint Collector, Ongole, 2nd respondent herein, proposing to confiscate the seized stock in favour of the Government, under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”). Basing on that report, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 08.03.1999 to the petitioners to explain as to why the seized stock should not be confiscated to the Government, as required under Section 6-B of the Act, for which the petitioners submitted explanations separately. Subsequently, on hearing both sides, the 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 18.07.1999, confiscating 25% of the stock seized or its value in favour of the Government. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed Crl.A.No.156 of 1999 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Prakasam Division, Ongole, and the learned Sessions Judge upheld the order passed by the 2nd respondent, vide judgment, dated 12.01.2004. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred this revision. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the present case pertains to the year 1999 and a bank guarantee has already been executed in favour of the authority concerned to a tune of Rs.27,625/- and prayed that the same may be reduced. 5. On perusal of the record, this Court finds no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the 2nd respondent as confirmed by the appellate Court. However, considering the submission of the learned counsel and also in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that 10% of the stock seized be confiscated in favour of the Government. 6. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 16th June, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.911 OF 2005 DATE: 16.06.2011 Between : S. Satyanarayana and another … Petitioners/ Respondents and The Circle Inspector, VCCSD, Ongole, and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.911 of 2005 (Disposed of) 16th June, 2011 cbs