IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1523 of 2003 Between: S.Ravishankar, S/o.Late B.Venkataiah, Aged 39 years, Prop. Of M/s.Veerabhadra Binny Rice Mill, Laxminarayanapur X Road, Agnoor Village, Yala Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Appellant/Petitioner AND The State through District Supply Officer, Ranga Reddy District Rep by Public Prosecutor …Respondents/Respondent The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1523 of 2003 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 27.08.2003 made in Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, while confirming the order of confiscation dated 15.04.2002 in Case No.A7/217/2002 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the learned judge has reduced the confiscating value of 50% of the seized stock to 25% and ordered accordingly. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the prosecution case may be stated as follows: The vigilance Inspector of the respondent organization inspected the premises of the petitioner and found a variation in quantities of stock i.e., shortage of 27.50 quintals of paddy, excess of 259.50 quintals of rice and shortage of 274.00 quintals of broken rice, when compared with the stock register with regard to the ground balances. 3. Consequently, three charges were framed against the petitioner. The first charge is framed for violation of condition 3 of Form B licence issued under A.P.Scheduled Commodities (L&D) Order, 1982 and Clause 16 of A.P.Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. Similarly, with regard to the second charge, it was alleged that the petitioner violated condition of 7(1) of Form B License (FGL) in entering transaction of purchase of PDS rice in a speculative manner, prejudicial to the maintenance and easy availability of supplies of Scheduled Commodities under PDS. In the third charge, it is alleged that the petitioner, being a licensed dealer and levy delivery miller, he involved in serious irregularities, improper maintenance of registers and fraudulently delivering rice under levy. 4. With reference to the first charge, the petitioner herein, except stating that there is no variation in the quantities of stock and the charge itself is illegal, but he has not produced any material to prove the same. The physical verification of the stocks with reference to the book balance is not shown to be incorrect. He has not filed the proof that stock on physical verification was in consonance with book balance. 5. With reference to the second charge, the petitioner stated that he is not responsible with regard to availability of PDS Rice. But as seen from mediators report, he was in possession of 97 quintals of PDS rice in excess. Except stating that he was not in possession, there is no material, which would go to show that 97 quintals of PDS rice in excess was found in possession of the petitioner herein and it was not shown how he acquired the excess quantity. 6. With reference to the third charge, the petitioner stated that he was maintaining the true or correct accounts. 7. Upon these grounds, the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, ordered confiscation of 100% of the value of the seized PDS rice of 97 quintals and 50% in respect of Paddy and Broken rice. The appellate Court found that passing of confiscation orders in respect of the rice, which was seized in a theft case, is improper and illegal and therefore, set aside the same, while modifying the order of confiscation of value of other seized stock from 50% to 25%. Challenging the said order, present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is no Control Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (‘the Act’, for brevity), with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, under Section 6(a) of the Act. Perhaps for this reason, the appellate Court rightly set aside the confiscation of the value of rice, which was seized in theft case. 9. Other contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, though the petitioner raised number of grounds in the appeal, none of them has been taken into consideration. There is absolutely no need to refer to these grounds. Those grounds have nothing to do with the factual aspects of the case, which have been alleged by the complainant, with reference to the variation of quantities, maintenance of registers and possession of PDS rice, which is not supposed to be in the custody of the petitioner. Therefore, the findings of the trial Court are completely in accordance with the law. There are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. In view of the fact that the appellate Court has set aside the order passed by the trial Court with reference to the confiscation of PDS rice, the sale proceeds of PDS rice have to be deposited in the criminal Court, where the theft case is pending against the petitioner and which is the subject matter in that case. 11. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed with the observation that the amount realized on confiscation of PDS rice be credited to the Criminal Court deposits, where the criminal case is pending against the petitioner. ________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU December 14, 2009 BVV