IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1638 OF 2010 Between: L. Sanjeeva … PETITIONER And 1. The Deputy Tahsildar 2. The Joint Collector-II 3. The State of A.P. … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1638 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. This revision petition is sought to be filed by the S.T.F. dealer against order dated 05.05.2010, passed by the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in Crl.A.No.17 of 2008, confirming order dated 03.05.2008, passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, confiscating entire seized stock under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in 6-A Case No.A7/611/2007. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was transporting 10 quintals of P.D.S. rice in auto trolley bearing No.AP 28X 8986 and that it was intercepted by the complainant and the stock as well as the auto trolley were seized and that when shop premises of the petitioner was checked, there was deficit of 7.48 quintals of rice when ground stock was checked with reference to the book stock. Explanation of the petitioner was that in respect of deficit of 7.48 quintals of rice, he gave coupons to the Inspecting Officer and that it was not taken into account by the Officer and that 10 quintals of rice seized from auto trolley was purchased by him from farmers and he was transporting the same to his daughter’s house. 3. Contention of the petitioner that he produced coupons for 7.48 quintals shown as deficit stock, cannot be correct because the Inspecting Officer has taken note of presence of coupons worth 21.40 quintals of P.D.S. rice and 6.65 quintals of A.A.Y. rice. Both the authorities below disbelieved explanation of the petitioner on all the aspects of the case. No evidence was let in by the petitioner before the Joint Collector to show that he purchased any rice from farmers. The question of purchasing rice from farmers may not arise, because farmers sell only paddy. On considering the entire material on record, this Court is satisfied that 10 quintals of rice seized from auto trolley was nothing but P.D.S. rice from the petitioner’s shop. It is evident that the petitioner was indulging in clandestine business with P.D.S. rice. There is no infirmity in the orders passed by both the authorities below. 4. Hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 18, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1638 OF 2010 August 18, 2010 KL