IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1277 OF 2010 Between: Doppalapudi Raghava Rao … PETITIONER And 1. District Collector and Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole. 2. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District. … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1277 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. This revision petition is sought to be filed against judgment dated 17.03.2010, passed by the Sessions Judge, Ongole, in Crl.A.No.17 of 2010 by which the lower Court in the appeal under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, modified quantum of confiscation of the seized stock from 50% to 25%. 2. The charges against the petitioner who is a trader/dealer are that the petitioner was selling rice in open market without delivering levy to F.C.I. and contravened Clauses 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement Levy Order, 1984, though the petitioner failed to maintain true and correct accounts resulting in huge variation when compared to the available stocks and contravened Clause 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement Levy Order, 1984, and failed to submit “C” Form returns to the Collector (CS) fortnightly and contravened Clause 16 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement Order, 1984. It is contention of the petitioner that he did not purchase any new stocks during the year 2006 and that he was only selling old stock of rice which was purchased in the year 2005 and which was delivered back to him on 18.12.2005 by the authorities after seizure. He further contends that since he did not make any new purchasers, there was nothing for him to submit Form ‘C’ returns and that he has been maintaining his accounts properly. Irrespective of new sales and new purchases, every dealer is duty bound to maintain accounts properly under Clause 16 (1) of the above control order and he is duty bound to submit fortnightly returns as per Clause 16 (2) of the control order. It is not known how the petitioner without submitting any fortnightly returns and without maintaining any accounts as per rules, was doing business in rice, paddy, etc. Admittedly, no levy rice is delivered by the petitioner to F.C.I. during the crop year 2006. It is not known what was the previous case in the year 2005 when the stocks were seized and when the stocks were said to have been released on 18.12.2005. The accounts do not show that the rice or paddy returned to the petitioner on 18.12.2005 continued to remain with the petitioner till 30.08.2006 when the present raid took place. 3. In the circumstances, both the joint Collector as well as the Sessions Judge came to the right conclusion that the petitioner had contravened Clauses 3, 4, 16 (1) and 16 (2) of the above control order. The authorities below exercised their discretion generously in favour of the petitioner and ultimately, the confiscation was limited to 25% of the seized stock. I do not find any ground to reduce or to modify a quantum of confiscated stock in this revision petition. 4. Hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 04, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1277 OF 2010 August 04, 2010 KL