THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.205 of 2011 ORDER: Petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Rice Mill, Jangareddigudem. On credible information, respondents herein inspected the business premises of the petitioner on 03.04.2009 and found him doing clandestine business by not maintaining the registers and accounts properly, resulting in occurrence of variation in the ground stock of rice, which is beyond permissible limits. As there is a variation in stocks and there was no proper explanation, the ground stock worth Rs.1,05,725/- was seized and the matter was reported to the Joint Collector for initiation of necessary proceedings. Pursuant to the said reference, the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) has been initiated and the petitioner was served with a notice calling for his explanation. The Joint Collector, Eluru, after holding an enquiry, rejected the contentions put forth by the petitioner and found that the petitioner contravened Clause 3 of the APSCD (LSR & R) Order, 2008 read with Section 6-A of the Act and accordingly, by order, dated 18.09.2009, ordered confiscation of 80% of the value of the seized stock. The said order, dated 18.09.2009, was questioned by filing an appeal in E.C.C.M.A.No.55 of 2009 under Section 6-C of the Act. By judgment, dated 22.10.2010, the learned Principal District Judge, Eluru, while holding that the finding arrived at by the Collector was correct, however, reduced the confiscation from 80% to 50% and directed the respondents to release 30% of the seized stock and if it is sold or not available the value thereof be refunded to the appellant. The said judgment is challenged in this revision. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a non-trading rice miller and no food grain lience is required and as per the settled law in force, petitioner has to maintain ‘A’ register and the petitioner is maintaining the same, but the respondents 2 and 3 without seizing the said ‘A’ register, filed a case under Section 6-A of the Act on the allegation that the petitioner is doing the business in Paddy and rice without having the Food Grain licence, ignoring the fact that the petitioner is a non-trading rice miller and no food grain licence is required, and hence the question of indulging in any clandestine business by the petitioners herein does not arise. 4. Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the relevant material available on record, this Court is of the view that for the variation of stock, petitioner could not offer proper explanation. In fact, the authorities below not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner for the variation in the stocks, ordered confiscation. I see no merits in this revision. However, as the Court below has taken a lenient view and reduced the confiscation to 50%, this Court is of the view that further lenience should be shown and accordingly, the confiscation is reduced to 25%. 5. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 18th February, 2011. Tsy