THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.201 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This revision is directed against the judgment dated 21.10.2010 made in ECCMA No.67 of 2009 by the Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, confirming the order passed in Roc.No.CS.I/228/ECA/2008, dated 19.9.2009 on the file of the Joint Collector, West Godavari, Eluru. The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.3, Kakaraparru village, Peravali Mandal. On information that she is not distributing the schedule commodities to the card holders as per the provisions of the APSPDS (Control) Order, the Circle Inspector, Vigilance & Enforcement, Eluru, Deputy Tahsildar, Peravali, V.R.O.-1 & 2, Kakaraparru along with mediators, surprised the shop of the petitioner on 13.11.2008 and found 39.04 kgs of PDS rice; 3.90 kgs of Sugar; 10 packets of Palmolive Oil and 4.54 kgs of Red Gram, valued at Rs.26,042/-. As the stock position so far rice is not tallying, the officials seized the entire stock and reported the matter to the Collector, who in turn initiated proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. On notice issued by the Joint Collector, the petitioner offered a detailed explanation, but however, the joint Collector rejected the said explanation and confiscated 70% of the stock seized on 13.11.2008, by order dated 19.9.2009. The same was questioned by way of filing appeal in ECCMA No.67 of 2009 before the Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. The learned District Judge while concurring with the findings of the Joint Collector reduced the confiscation from 70% to 50%. The same is questioned in this revision. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that 3.5 quintals of rice was meant for food to the children under mid-day meals scheme and the authorities have not taken into consideration that aspect. According to her, if the said 3.5 quintals is excluded from out of the stocks seized, there is absolutely no variation in rice. The above contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner appears to be true for the reason that she produced a receipt issued by the Head-Master S.V.Z.P.P. High School, Kakaraparru village, wherein it is stated that on 11.11.2008, five bags of rice had been delivered. As per the Joint Collector and the learned District Judge, there is a shortage of 3.35 quintals of rice including the rice meant for mid-day meals. But when the said 5 bags, which are weighed at 75 kgs per bag, is excluded, there cannot be any variation as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court accepted the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and set aside the order impugned herein. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the order impugned herein as well as the order of the Joint Collector. However, it is needless to observe that the respondents- authorities shall release the entire seized stock, if available and if not, the value thereof to be refunded to the petitioner. _____________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 8th March 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.201 of 2011 8.3.2011