HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Crl.R.C.No. 1800 of 2010 Date: 06-10-2010 Between: Surasani Kishan Reddy and another Petitioners And The State of A.P. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Crl.R.C.No. 1800 of 2010 ORDER: This Revision is directed against the Judgment, dated 06-06-2008 in Crl.A.No.14 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Ref.No.A7/571/2003, dated 18-05-2004, ordering confiscation of the entire rice and the bank guarantee furnished at the time of releasing the lorry bearing No. AAN 3255. 2. The brief facts are that on receipt of credible information, the Mandal Revenue Officer along with his staff intercepted the lorry bearing No.AAN 3255 near Ammojiguda village on 17-09-2003 and found 155 bags of rice (50 KGs each) meant for distribution under Mid- day Meals Scheme. As the driver of the said vehicle could not offer proper explanation, the said rice and the vehicle were seized and the matter was reported to the Joint Collector for initiation of necessary proceedings. Pursuant thereto, the Joint Collector initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and issued a notice under Section 6-B of the Act. During the pendency of Section 6-A proceedings, it appears that the owner of the vehicle i.e., the petitioner herein, filed an Application for release of the vehicle and the Joint Collector, on furnishing of bank guarantee by the petitioner in a sum of Rs.50,700/-, released the said lorry on 18-09-2003. Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 6-B of the Act, a detailed explanation was offered and the Joint Collector held a detailed enquiry, but, however, came to the conclusion that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not correct and held that the rice, which was seized, is meant for distribution under Mid-day Meals Scheme and, accordingly, ordered confiscation of the entire stock in favour of the Government. As there was no proper explanation with regard to the rice either from the owner or the driver of the vehicle, the said bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner also was confiscated. The said order, dated 18-05-2004 was questioned by filing Crl.A.No.14 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad under Section 6-C of the Act and the Appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge by the Judgment, dated 06-06-2008. The same is questioned in this Revision. 3. Heard. 4. Apparently the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and he is engaged in the business of transport. When the rice meant for distribution under Mid-day Meals Scheme is loaded in the said lorry, there is an obligation on the part of the driver or the owner of the vehicle to offer proper explanation as to wherefrom the said rice was being transported and to which place. The same is missing and the petitioner could not offer any proper explanation. In fact, this alone prompted the learned Joint Collector as well as the learned Sessions Judge to come to the conclusion that the entire stock, so seized, and the bank guarantee shall be confiscated. Accordingly, I see no merits in this Revision. 5. However, as the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and he is eking out his livelihood from out of the earnings of the lorry, this Court is of the view that the said confiscation of the entire bank guarantee shall be restricted to 75% and the balance amount shall be released in favour of the petitioner. 6. With the above observation, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of at the stage of admission. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Date: 06-10-2010 YCR