THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.337 of 2011 JUDGMENT: Petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Chandra Sekhara Rice Mill, Jangareddigudem. On credible information, respondents herein inspected the business premises of the petitioner on 30.08.2009 and found him doing clandestine business by not maintaining the registers and accounts properly, resulting in occurrence of variation in the ground stock of rice, which is beyond permissible limits. As there is a variation in stocks and there was no proper explanation, the ground stock worth Rs.2,03,258/- was seized and the matter was reported to the Joint Collector for initiation of necessary proceedings. Pursuant to the said reference, the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act has been initiated and the petitioner was served with a notice calling for his explanation. The Joint Collector, Eluru, after holding an enquiry, rejected the contentions put forth by the petitioner, and found that the petitioner violated the provisions of condition 3 (iii), Clause 6 and 11 of the PSCD (LS & R), Order, 2008 and accordingly, by order, dated 02.08.2010, ordered confiscation of 50% of the value of the seized stock. The said order, dated 02.08.2010, was questioned by filing an appeal in E.C.C.M.A.No.56 of 2009 under Section 6-C of the Act. By judgment, dated 13.12.2010, the learned Principal District Judge, Eluru, while holding that the finding arrived at by the Collector was correct, however, reduced the confiscation from 50% to 25% and directed the respondents to release 25% of the seized stock and if it is sold or not available the value thereof be refunded to the appellant. The said judgment is challenged in this revision. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there are no purchases or sales and hence, there is no need to maintain any stock registers and in such event there is no possibility of any variations between the ground stock and the book balance. 4. Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the relevant material available on record, this Court is of the view that for the variation of stock, the petitioner could not offer proper explanation. In fact, the authorities below not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner for the variation in the stocks, ordered confiscation. I see no merits in this revision. However, as the Court below has taken a lenient view and reduced the confiscation to 25%, this Court is of the view that further lenience should be shown and accordingly, the confiscation is reduced to 15%. 5. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 18th February, 2011. Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 21-02-2011. B/o Tsy