HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1869 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This revision is directed against the order dated 20.07.1995 passed by the District Collector, Adilabad, in Case No.CS.6/728/95 confiscating the seized stocks to the Government, as confirmed by the learned II Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad, in Crl.A.No.133 of 2001, by judgment dated 24.10.2002. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on receipt of credible information that the 2nd petitioner herein is hoarding foodgrains, pulses and edible oils in his residential house situated at Ranisatiji Mandir Street, without having a valid licence, the Inspector of Police, VCCS, along with the staff visited the residential house of the 2nd petitioner on 2.5.1995 at 3.30 p.m. and noticed huge quantities of BPT rice, HMT rice, Bengalgram dhal, Wheat, Jowar, Redgram dhal, Greengram dhal, Basmathi rice, Lobia, Blackgram dhal, Masoor dhal and four barrels of F.N.Oil. when questioned, the 2nd petitioner could not give any explanation. Thus, it is established that the 2nd petitioner is indulged in purchase, sale and storage of food grains, pulses, etc. without food grains licence and contravened Cl.3(1) of A.P. Prevention of Food grains Order, 1973 and Cl.3(1)(2) of A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (L & D) Order, 1982 r/w Section 7 of E.C. Act, 1955. i) For contravening the above provisions of law, the available stocks in the house of the 2nd petitioner have been seized. Thereafter, the District Collector, Adilabad, passed an order in Case No.C.56/728/95, dated 20.07.1995, confiscating the seized stocks to Government. Against the said order, the petitioners filed Crl.A.No.133 of 2001 on the file of the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge at Adilabad and the same was dismissed on 24.10.2002. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred this revision. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the orders impugned in this revision, this Court is of the view that the 2nd petitioner is conducting business without having any valid licence, and holding of stocks without licence can definitely be said to be contravention of the provisions of the control order. Hence, I see no merits in this revision. 5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Court, by an order dated 06.05.1995 in W.P.No.12154 of 1995, directed that the seized stocks be released in favour of the petitioners on condition of their furnishing bank guarantee for the value of 50% of the seized stocks. 6. Since the seized stocks were already ordered to be released in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners furnished bank guarantee for the value of 50% of the seized stock and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct that the value of 50% of the seized stocks, which was furnished by way of bank guarantee, shall be confiscated to the Government. 7. With the above direction, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. ______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 4th June, 2010. CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1869 of 2002 (Dismissed) 4th June, 2010 CBS