THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.857 of 2002 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment, dated 11-07-2001, passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl.A.No.128 of 2000, confirming the order, dated 09-12-1999, in Case No.190/98, passed by the 1st respondent- Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad, confiscating 20% of the value of the seized stocks in favour of the Government. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.10.1998, the 2nd respondent-Inspector of Police, V.C.C.S.D., Hyderabad, inspected M/s Charminar Traders, Golnaka, Hyderabad and found that the revision petitioner herein, who is the Proprietor of the said firm, was conducting business in rice and when checked, he found that the firm is being run without valid licence and also indulging in clandestine business and therefore, he seized the stocks under cover of panchanama and registered a case in Cr.No.195/VC/City/T1/98. Pursuant thereto, on the basis of the report furnished by the 2nd 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 09.12.1999, confiscating 20% of the value of the seized stock in favour of the Government. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.128 of 2000 and the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, by judgment, dated 11.07.200, 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 percentage of confiscation imposed by the 1st respondent-Chief Rationing Officer 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 09-12-1999, passed by the 1st respondent-Chief Rationing Officer, Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad. 6. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 15th July,2010 Tsy