HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.525 OF 2004 Date: 17-06-2011 Between: B. Subbarayudu. - - - Petitioner/ Appellant/ Respondent No.2. Versus Mandal Revenue Officer, Inkollu, Prakasam District And three others. - - - Respondents/ Respondents/ Complainants. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.525 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Petitioner- Second Respondent against judgment, dated 06-06-2003, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.212 of 1998 by the Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole (For short, ‘The Sessions Judge’) confirming order passed by the Joint Collector, Ongole in RC. H1/6A/80/92, dated 31-03-1994 under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 2. The Petitioner herein is the Second Respondent and the First Respondent herein is the Complainant in RC. No.H1/6A/80/92 and Primary Authority whereas, the third Respondent is the State, represented by the Public Prosecutor. 3. The Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole, (For short, ‘Joint Collector’) after going through relevant record and written explanation submitted by the Petitioner for a show cause notice issued to him and after hearing arguments of both sides, ordered for confiscation of entire seized stock of 400 litres of kerosene from the premises of Navata Road Transport Office, Inkollu, belonging to the first respondent as the proprietor of Sree Venkateswara Oil Traders on the ground of keeping the stocks unauthorisedly in the premises of Navatha Road Transport Office in favour of the Government for violation of Clause 3 of A.P. Petroleum Products (L & R of S) Order, 1980 through the impugned order in RC. No.H1/6A/80/92, dated 31-03-1994. 4. Whereas challenging the seizure of the confiscated stock in favour of the Government, the Petitioner filed the Criminal Appeal No.212 of 1998, the learned Sessions Judge, having gone through the material available, dismissed the Criminal Appeal while confirming the confiscation of the entire seized stock in favour of the Government for the violation of Clause 3 of A.P. Petroleum Products (L & R of S) order, 1980, by the first respondent vide the judgment dated 06-06-2003, by reason of which, the petitioner has preferred this Revision. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents-State. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the record of the Department itself, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, verified the registers of the Revision Petitioner i.e., Sri Venkateswara Oil Traders, Inkollu and found that the stocks available in the shop were tallying with the record available there and no violation was committed by the petitioner and the Joint Collector and also the Appellate Authority, failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence the finings given by them are liable to be set aside. 7. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to: 1) Whether the explanation given with regards to keeping the stock of 400 litres of kerosene oil in Navatha Road Transport Office belonging to Sri Venkateswara Oil Traders for which the Revision Petitioner was the proprietor is acceptable or not? and 2) Whether the findings of the Authorities below are tenable or not? 8. In fact, as per the record concerned Mandal Revenue Inspector, along with his staff inspected the shop of the Revision Petitioner and he verified the stocks available there with the stock register of the shop and found that both of them were tallying with each other. But, it does not mean by itself that no illegality was committed by the revision petitioner. It is only meant that whatever stock was available was shown in the stock register only. It is not the case of the petitioner that the stock belonged to Navatha Road Transport Office whereas in fact as per the explanation given by the petitioner the stocks were kept in Navatha Road Transport Office belonged to his son A. Sreenivasa Rao and it was not for illegal sale. So, there is no reason to reject the claim of the Department that at the time of inspection 400 litres of kerosene oil was found in Navatha Road Transport Office belonging to the Revision Petitioner, then it is for him to explain why the stocks were kept in Navatha Road Transport Office. The explanation given by him provides that it was kept there for convenience sake which may be true, but it was not permissible because he got a duty to maintain the stocks in his shop on par with the relevant registers of his shop and distribute it as per law and not to resort to selling it in black market clandestinely. Keeping the stock in a different shop is likely to give some suspicion about his bonafides because it would prevent necessary verification of the stocks in his shop with the relevant registers of the shop in true sense and give scope to sell them in the black market. Therefore, the Revision Petitioner failed to substantiate his explanation to the effect that there was no illegality. 9. Further learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision petitioner got authority to keep 100 litres of kerosene only in his shop. Therefore, he was keeping excess quantity of 300 litres of kerosene in his possession but in a different shop. However, keeping in view of the circumstances of the case, I feel that it is reasonable to reduce the confiscation to 300 litres of kerosene. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed but modifying the confiscation to only 300 litres of kerosene. The concerned Authorities are directed to return the balance of 100 litres of kerosene oil or its value to the petitioner. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 17th June, 2011. Dsh. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 228 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.525 of 2004 (Partly Allowed) 17th June, 2011 Dsh