HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.2357 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Crl.A.No.452 of 2010 dated 07.12.2010 confirming the order of confiscation of 20% of seized stock in favour of the Government passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur, in E.C. Act Case No.169/2010-S7 dated 23.08.2010. It is the case of the prosecution that on 02.06.2010, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Vinukonda, inspected the Dhal Mill premises of the revision petitioner and found the shortage of 13.81 quintals of redgram and 200.68 quintals of redgram dhal and that the petitioner has not maintained the records properly and thus violated condition No.3 (1) of form-B licence issued under A.P.S.C.D (LSR) Order, 2008. The entire ground stock of redgram dhal available in the Mill premises was seized and the cost of the seized stock was worked out to Rs.1,05,54,200/-. Thereafter, he lodged a report under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act with the District Collector, Guntur, for confiscation of entire seized stock in favour of the State. Pursuant thereto, the District Collector, Guntur, passed interim orders on 20.07.2010 for disposal of seized stock by the Tahsildar, Vinukonda, while issuing a show cause notice calling for the explanation of the revision petitioner under Section 6-B of the Act, to which the petitioner gave a reply. Subsequently, the District Collector, Guntur, passed an order dated 23.08.2010 confiscating 20% of the seized stock in favour of the Government, while releasing the remaining 80% of the seized stock in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal being Crl.A.No.452 of 2010 and the District Judge, Guntur, dismissed the said appeal, confirming the confiscation order passed by the District Collector, Guntur. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on either side and having perused the impugned orders, this Court is of the view that the District Collector and the appellate Court rightly ordered confiscation of 20% of the seized stock in favour of the Government. That apart, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has also not produced any other material before me, which would discredit the evidence on record. In the circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the appellate Court ordering confiscation of 20% of the seized stock in favour of the Government. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that some relief can be given to the petitioner and accordingly the said confiscation of 20% of the seized stock in favour of the Government is reduced to 10%. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed with the above modification. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 07-03-2011 Gsn.