THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1718 OF 2010 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the order dated 03.10.2009 passed by the Joint Collector in Case No.A7/518/2009 whereby 60% of the total stock seized from out of the possession of the petitioner was confiscated in favour of the Government and as confirmed by the learned District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2009 dated 06.07.2010. 2 Brief facts are that on information that the petitioner is carrying on clandestine business in rice to be distributed through public distribution system, the Deputy Tahasildar caught the tractor baring No.AP 29 TA 1982 and trolley bearing No.AP 29TA 1983 on the night of 05.07.2009 and found 28 quintals of rice to be distributed under the public distribution system in 62 plastic bags. On inspection of the said rice, the Deputy Tahasildar Enforcement and others have concluded that it is the rice to be distributed through public distribution system. As the same is rice meant to be distributed through public distribution system and it is more than 20 quintals, and the petitioner was not having any valid licence, the said stock was seized and the matter was reported to the Joint Collector for initiation of appropriate proceedings. Pursuant thereto a notice under section 6 B of the Essential Commodities Act was issued and the petitioner offered a detailed explanation stating that he is a kirana merchant and he purchases rice from persons and sell the same. As the said explanation was not satisfactory, the Joint Collector came to the conclusion that the rice so seized is rice meant to be distributed through public distribution system and the petitioner is carrying on clandestine business and held that he has contravened Clause 3(1) of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Licensing, Storage & Regulation) Order 2008 and clause 7 (2) and 8(3) of Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement Levy Order, 1984 and ordered confiscation of 60% of the entire stock so seized. The said order of the Joint Collector was questioned by filing Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2009 under section 6 C of the Essential Commodities Act and the said appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 06.07.2010. The same is questioned in this revision. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Bollam Lingaiah Yadav submitted that after distribution of the rice meant to be distributed through public distribution system, it cannot be any more termed as public distribution system rice and the Joint Collector as well as the learned District Judge have erroneously held that it is a rice meant to be distributed under public distribution system. According to him when once it is not rice meant to be distributed under public distribution system, the petitioner has not contravened any of the provisions of the Control Order. 4 Heard both sides. 5 I accept the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. May be the said rice is for public distribution system, but as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner when once it is distributed to the cardholders and a kirana merchant like the petitioner purchases the same, it cannot still be termed as public distribution system rice. But no person is expected to have more than 20 quintals of rice and when he possesses more than 20 quintals, he shall have a valid licence issued under Clause 3(1) of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Licensing, Storage & Regulation) Order 2008. Here is a case where the petitioner is found in possession of 28 quintals of rice. Even if it is concluded that the said rice is not public distribution system rice when the petitioner is in possession of 28 quintals of the said rice, he is expected to have a valid licence issued under the said clause. In my considered view, through the finding of the authorities below to the effect that it is the rice meant to be distributed under public distribution system, and the petitioner is found in possession of the said rice is not correct, the petitioner still can be held guilty for not possessing any valid licence under the said control order. 6 The other submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the control order itself states that any person can hold up to 20 quintals of rice, the authorities shall restrict the confiscation only to the stocks seized over and above the said 20 quintals and cannot order confiscation of anything more than the said 20 quintals. I cannot countenance the said submission. The said facility of having possession up to 20 quintals of rice is provided for under the control order keeping in view the agriculturists and farmers who produce rice in their fields. Here as per the material on record it is clear that the petitioner does not possess any agricultural land and the entire stock is purchased from the cardholders. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that the said order of confiscation over and above 20 quintals is bad. Hence I see no merits in this revision. However, taking the fact that the petitioner is a petty kirana merchant, the said order of confiscation is restricted to 30%. In so far as the other finding of the learned District Judge remitting the matter to the Joint Collector with regard to the finding to be given on tractor and trailer is concerned, the said order is not disturbed. 7 With the above observations, this revision is disposed of. -------------- 27.09.2010 Kvsn