IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1122 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Chila Kiran S/o. Chila Hanumantha Rao …. Petitioner AND The Joint Collector (CS) II, R.R. District. …. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1122 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is filed against order dated 01-06-2010 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2009 confirming order of confiscation of 100% of the seized stock by the Joint Collector – II, Ranga Reddy District in 6-A Case No.SA7/397/2009 dated 07-07-2009 on the ground that the petitioner / dealer failed to apply and renew his Food Grain Dealers licence and that there was excess stock of 30 quintals of rice over and above the stock mentioned in the Stock Register. Contravention alleged against the petitioner / trader is under Clause 3 and Conditions (i) to (v) of APSCD (L, S & R) Order, 2008. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner has got grace period of 30 days after expiry of lincence to apply for renewal of the licene and that as the petitioner’s father was ill and due to domestic problems, he could not apply for renewal of licence before expiry of the licence period and also within grace period of 30 days thereafter. It is stated by the petitioner’s counsel that inspection of the premisis was on 04-05-2009, four days after the grace period allowed for apply for renewal of licence. It is further contended that the alleged excess stock of 30 quintals of rice was received by the petitioner on the same day from Karmanghat rice mill and that before entering the said stock into the register, the raid took place. Even though the petitioner filed TIN dated 04-05-2009 of M/s.Lakshmi Narasimha Traders, Karmanghat before the Joint Collector during enquiry, the petitioner could not produce the same to the inspection party at the time of inspection. 3. Having considered all these aspects, the Joint Collector as well as the Sessions Judge in the appeal, found that the petitioner contravened Clause-3 and Conditions (i) to (v) of the APSCD (L, S & R) Order 2008. But, the Sessions Judge did not modify order relating to confiscation of stocks on the view that modification does not mean change of percentage of confiscation. The said view is not correct. It is left to the discretion of the authorities under Section 6-A or the Sessions Judge under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act to confiscate either 100% of the seized stock or any portion thereof. In case, contravention of the relevant order is made out, that discretion is always vested in the authorities as well as in the appellate Judge. 4. It is prayed by the petitioner’s counsel that confiscation of 10% of the seized stock is in-appropriate in cases of this nature. The petitioner has not given any valid explanation for not applying for renewal of licence before expiry of the licence period or even within grace period of 30 days allowed by the control order. The petitioner was busy otherwise and did not bestow interest on the basic requirement of having licence for running the trade. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that confiscation of 50% of the seized stock is just and appropriate. 5. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed, but modifying quantity of confiscation from 100% to 50% of the seized stock. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 25, 2010 KTL