THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.910 OF 2011 DATED:26.07.2011 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 21.02.2011, in E.C.A.No.101 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein, was dismissed, confirming the order, dated 16.11.2009, of the Joint Collector, Krishna District in E.C.P.No.311 of 2009. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the records. 3. The Grain Purchasing Assistant, Jaggaiahpet filed a complaint stating that she along with the Circle Inspector of Vigilance and Enforcement Department and Mandal Revenue Inspector, Vatsavai surprised the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Chittella village of Vatsavai mandal on 27.08.2009 at 3.00 p.m., and found 66.40 quintals of red gram belonging to one Marella Venkata Reddy and on questioning, he stated that he gave the godown for rent to Pasupula Kesava Rao of Lingala village and the said red gram stock belongs to Pasupula Kesava Rao. The Officials seized the said stock of red gram in the presence of mediators and handed over the same to Arigela Baby, V.R.O., Chittella village for safe custody and filed report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’). 4. The trial Court issued notice to the said Kesava Rao under Section 6-B of the Act and framed charge for violation of Clause 3 of the A.P.Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008. During the enquiry, the said Kesava Rao filed written explanation stating that the seized stock belonged to one Kalyanapu Rama Rao and he has nothing to do with the same. Petitioners herein filed claim applications stating that they own an extent of Ac.9.96 cents and Ac.9.73 cents of land and that in the year, 2008-09 they raised red gram crop and stored 66.40 quintals of red gram in the room of P.A.C.S., Chittella village. The Joint Collector held that the petitioners herein failed to establish their claim of the seized stock of red gram. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the same and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. Hence, the present Revision Case. 5. Petitioners herein claimed to be the owners of the red gram. During the enquiry, they have not produced any documents to show that the seized stock of red gram belonged to him or that it was the yield realized from their lands. May be the petitioners are having agricultural lands, but it does not however lead to any inference that the seized stock of red gram was the yield from the said lands. The Secretary, P.A.C.S. has stated that he did not lease out the room to the petitioners herein and that the room was leased to one Pasupula Kesava Rao, who is a trader in pulses. In the panchanama also, it was mentioned that the seized stock belonged to Pasupala Kesava Rao. The claim of the petitioners that they took the room on rent from the P.A.C.S., Chittella, remained baseless and totally unsubstantiated, in view of the statement of the Secretary, P.A.C.S. that the room was never let out to the petitioners and it was let out only to D.Kotaiah. In the absence of any evidence to show that the petitioners have taken the room on rent from the P.A.C.S. or that the seized stock of red gram represented the yield from the lands of the petitioners, the Joint Collector and the learned Sessions Judge have rightly held that the petitioners failed to establish their claim over the said seized stock of red gram. The impugned orders passed by the Courts below, dismissing the claim of the petitioners, do not call for any interference. 6. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 26th July, 2011. Tsy