IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRL.R.C.NO.11 OF 2002. Date:23.02.2010 Between:- Y.S.Balakishan and another ..Petitioners/Appellants/Respondents And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .. Respondent/respondent/complainant ORDER:- On 08.02.2002, this Court made the following order: “The revision petitioners’ counsel contends that it is a technical offence and the ordering of confiscation of 20% is excessive. Admit.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent. 3. The learned counsel representing the revision petitioners had pointed out to the specific grounds raised in the criminal revision case and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of confiscation to an extent of 20% is definetly excessive. 4. On the contrary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons, which had been recorded by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, it is not a fit case to be inferred with. 5. Perused the order made by the learned Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad and the judgment of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad. 6. The revision petitioners, being aggrieved by the Judgment passed in Criminal appeal No.220 of 2000 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, had preferred the present Criminal Revision case. 7. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder: The Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department, City Team-II, Hyderabad inspected M/s.Sri Sai Rice Depot situated at Shop No.8-3-230/B/33/1, Venkatagiri, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, that the second petitioner was conducting business on behalf of first petitioner, that on physical verification of ground stock with that of the book balance, there had been a shortage of 16.50 quintals of rice. The second petitioner could not explain the reasons for huge variation and therefore, the entire stock was seized and the report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) had been made before the Court at the first instance. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued under Section 6-B of the Act as to why the entire seized stock should not be confiscated to the Government. The same was received by the petitioners on 07.03.2000. The first petitioner filed a statement stating that the second petitioner was an illiterate person and had gone to his native place. It was before his inspection, 16.50 quintals of rice was found to be mixed with sand and the said rice was sent to the house for cleaning. Later, the Vigilance Police inspected the shop and the first petitioner stated that he would see that such maintenance would not be repeated in future. 8. Considering the material available on record, the Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad ordered confiscation of 30% of the value of the seized stocks in favour of the Government since the petitioners failed to maintain proper and correct accounts of the stocks and thus, had violated Clause 3(i) of the A.P.S.C.D.(L&D) Order, 7(i) of the license issued under A.P.S.C.D.(L&D) Order, and Clause 3(iii) and Licencing condition No.10 of licencing condition. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioners filed Criminal Appeal No.220 of 2000 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad as already aforesaid and the learned Judge, after formulating the point for determination at Para No.6, recorded reasons at Para Nos.9 to 16 and ultimately, came to the conclusion that the order of confiscation of 30% of the value of the seized stocks may not be just and the same was limited to 20% of the value of the seized stock and accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed as indicated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal revision case has been preferred by the revision petitioners. 9. It is not in serious controversy that on 15.09.1999, at about 1 p.m., the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department, City Team-II, Hyderabad inspected M/s.Sri Sai Rice Depot situated at shop No.8-3-230/B/33/1, Venkatagiri, Yousufguda, Hyderabad and found shortage of 16.50 quintals of rice when the verification was made. 10. Clause 3(i) of Licensing condition of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 (for brevity, ‘the Order’) reads as hereunder: “ The licensee shall except when specially exempted by the State Government or by the licensing authority in this behalf, maintain a register of daily accounts for each commodity mentioned in condition-I, showing correctly:- a) the opening stock on each day; b) the quantities received on each day showing the place from where and the source from which received; c) the quantities delivered or otherwise removed on each day showing the places of destination; and d) the closing stock on each day.” 11. The second violation complained of Clause 7(i) of the said order reads as hereunder: “The licensee shall not enter into any transaction involving purchase, sale or storage for sale all or any of the scheduled commodities in a specultive manner prejudicial to the maintenance and easy availability of supplies of scheduled commodities in the market.” 12. The third violation complained of Clause 3(iii) of the said order reads as hereunder: “The licensee shall enter the particulars referred to in item (b) and item (c) of sub-clause (i) above in the register as soon as the relevant transaction takes place.” 13. The learned Judge, apart from taking into consideration the relevant clauses and the violations which had been complained of, recorded reasons in detail and in relation to caluse 10 as well the learned Judge observed that there is no material to show that the petitioners were not issuing correct receipts or invoices and thus, the learned Judge further observed that the third charge had not been proved beyond preponderance of probabilities. 14. On a careful analysis of the reasons which had been recorded by the learned Judge, this Court is of the considered opinion that inasmuch as the learned Judge had modified the order of confiscation of 30% of the value of the seized stocks of rice, made by the Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad limiting the same to 20% of the value of the seized stocks in favour of the Government, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that there is no legal infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _​_____________ P.S.NARAYANA, J 23rd February, 2010 AMD