HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.856 of 2002 ORDER: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in Crl.A.No.07 of 2001 dated 08.06.2001 modifying the order of confiscation from 30% to 15% of value of the seized stocks in favour of the Government passed by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Nalgonda, in Case No.CS1/83/2000 dated 17.10.2000. It is the case of the prosecution that on 28.04.2000, the 3rd respondent-Inspector of Police, V.C.C.S.D., Nalgonda, inspected the kirana-cum-residential godown of the revision petitioner and found his wife was conducting business in the said shop and when checked, he found that the shop is being run without any licence and, therefore, he seized 91 quintals of paddy. Pursuant thereto, on the basis of the report furnished by the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice calling for the explanation of the revision petitioner as to why the seized stock shall not be confiscated. Subsequently, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 17.10.2000 confiscating 30% of the value of the seized stock in favour of the Government. The 1st respondent further directed the 2nd respondent to collect the confiscation amount of Rs.15,015/- from the revision petitioner and remit the sale proceeds of seized stock. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal being Crl.A.No.07 of 2001 and the same was allowed in part by reducing the confiscation from 30% to 15% by the Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, vide judgment dated 08.06.2001. Hence the criminal revision petition. Heard both sides. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on either side and having perused the impugned orders, this Court is of the view that the appellate Court rightly reduced the percentage of stocks from 30% to 15% and the said percentage of confiscation is not on higher side. That apart, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has also not produced any other material before me, which would discredit the evidence on record. In the circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the appellate Court reducing the Order of confiscation passed by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 07-04-2010 Gsn.