THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.858 of 2002 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment, dated 24-08-2000, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in Crl.A.No.168 of 2000, partially confirming the order, dated 19-06-2000, in Case No.CS1/22/96, passed by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Nalgonda, reducing the quantum of confiscation from Rs.31,341/- to Rs.23,506/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.02.1996, the 3rd respondent-Inspector of Police, V.C.C.S.D., Nalgonda, inspected M/s Kranti Mini Binny Modern Rice Mill, Nalgonda, and found that the revision petitioner herein, who is the Managing partner of the said mill, was indulging in clandestine business and when checked, he found that the revision petitioner is not maintaining true and correct records and accounts and holding the stock without authorization and therefore, he seized the property worth Rs.1,04,470/- under cover of panchanama and registered Case No. CS1/22/96. Pursuant thereto, on the basis of the report furnished by the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent herein issued a show cause notice under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, calling for explanation of the petitioner as to why the seized stocks shall not be confiscated. Subsequently, the 1st respondent passed an order, dated 19.06.2000, confiscating Rs.31,341/- in favour of the Government. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.168 of 2000 and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, by judgment, dated 24.08.2001, dismissed the same. Hence the present Criminal Revision Case. 3. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 4. 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 amount ordered to be confiscated by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Nalgonda is not on higher side. Both the Courts have concurrently found that the revision petitioner has indulged in clandestine business. That apart, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has also not produced any other material before this Court, which would discredit the evidence on record. 5. In the circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the appellate Court, confirming the order of confiscation, dated 19-06-2000, passed by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Nalgonda. 6. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 15th July,2010 Tsy