THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1830 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This revision is directed against the judgment dated 06.09.2000 passed in Crl.A.No.98 of 1998 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Karimnagar confirming the order in Case No.G3/2099/95 dated 22.08.1998 passed by the Joint Collector, Karimnagar confiscating the entire seized stock of 339.30 quintals of paddy in favour of the Government under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “ the Act”). The brief facts of the case are as follows: On receipt of credible information that the petitioner herein is carrying on clandestine business of food grains without having any valid license, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell Civil Supplies, Karimanagar visited the unauthorized go-down (abandoned) tiled house bearing No. 2-84 on 27.04.1995. At the time of his visit, the petitioner was attending to business and when questioned, he could not produce any valid license to carry on the business. As the said business is unauthorized, the entire quantity of paddy i.e., 339.30 quintals was seized under a cover of panchanama. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Collector for initiation of necessary proceedings under Section 6-B of the Act. The Joint Collector issued a show cause notice and the petitioner offered a detailed explanation but however, the Joint Collector after holding an enquiry confiscated the entire stock that was seized. The same was questioned by way of filing an appeal under Section 6-C of the Act before the Sessions Judge, Karimnagar and learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the Joint Collector. Hence, the petitioner filed the present revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P. Giri Krishna submitted that the petitioner is an agriculturist and according to him, the petitioner owns Ac 5.00 guntas of land and his father owns about Ac 13.00 guntas of land which is being cultivated by the petitioner and from an extent of Ac 18.00 guntas, the yield would be more than 500 quintals. But the respondents without considering the said aspect initiated proceedings as though the petitioner is carrying on clandestine business. Heard the learned Additional public prosecutor. I do not find any substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the Joint Collector under Section 6-B of the Act, the petitioner offered his explanation in the following manner: 1) That the Sub-Inspector of Police, VCCS, Karimnagar has inspected the house of the respondent, and registered a case vide Crime No.20/95 under Cl. 3 of A.P. Schedule Commodities (L&D) Order, 1982, and Cl.3 of Prevention of Hoarding of food grains order, 1973 and 7 of E.C. Act, 1955, and the Sub-Inspector of VCCS questioned the respondent about the lands of the respondent. The respondent submits, he has been implicated falsely in the above case, and the seized stock of paddy total bags 522 i.e., 339.30 Qtls. produced in his own land further submit that, the respondent is not a business person, nor a dealer for selling of the paddy of any other essential commodities. 2) That the respondent having more than 5 acres of land at Gattepalli (v) of Sulthanabad Mandal. The Certified Pahani issued by the Revenue Village Assistant, filed herewith for kind perusal. It is clearly shows that, the seized stock by the Sub- Inspector of Police, VCCS, produced by the respondent in his own land. 3) That the respondent further submits that, the respondent is an agriculturist. Hence, it is prayed that, this Hon’ble Office may be pleased to drop the proceedings. No where it is stated in the explanation submitted by the petitioner that he was cultivating the land of his father. But what was stated in the explanation is that he owns Ac. 5.00 guntas of land. Further, the Joint Collector clearly held that from a perusal of the contents of the Pattedar Pass Books, the petitioner is in possession of total extent of Ac. 4.01 guntas of wetland. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the petitioner is also cultivating the lands of his father. When the total extent is Ac. 4.00 guntas, the yield would be not more than 100 quintals. In fact, that was also calculated by the Joint Collector. According to the Joint Collector, the approximate yield or average produce of paddy per acre shall be about 16.8 quintals and the total yield from out of the said Ac. 4.00 guntas of land would be 67 quintals. When the said land which is in possession of the petitioner is Ac. 4.00 guntas, the total yield would be 67 quintals. The total stock that was seized from out of the possession of the petitioner was 339.30 quintals. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner is carrying on the clandestine business of paddy without having any valid license. The order of confiscation passed by the authorities is justified. I see no merits in the revision. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed. GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J Dated:07.12.2010 lvl THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1830 OF 2003 Dt. 07.12.2010