THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2152 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment, dated 20.11.22004, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa, confirming the order, dated 09.08.2004, passed by the Joint Collector, Kadapa, whereby the entire stock seized from out of the possession of the petitioner’s business premises was confiscated. The case in brief is that the petitioner is the Proprietor of Lakshminarayana Traders, Gandhi Road, Rayachoty, and is carrying on business in essential commodities. On information that the petitioner was carrying on the said business clandestinely, the Inspector of Police, VCCSD, Kadapa surprised the said shop on 16.11.1998, at about 15 hours and on comparison of the ground stock with the stock register maintained by the petitioner, he found variation. In those circumstances, the entire stock was seized and the matter was reported to the Joint Collector, who, in turn, initiated the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (for short ‘the Act’) and issued a notice under Section 6-B of the Act. However, as the petitioner did not offer any explanation and nobody represented him, the Joint Collector by her order, dated 09.08.2004, ordered confiscation of the entire seized stock. The same was questioned by the petitioner herein by filing the Crl.A.No.147 of 2004 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa, who while concurring with the findings recorded by the Joint Collector, dismissed the said appeal. The same is questioned in this Criminal Revision Case. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner engaged an advocate, gave him necessary instructions, but the said advocate has not filed the required explanation to the notice issued by the Joint Collector and prayed this Court to give one more opportunity to the petitioner. May be, it is true that the said advocate engaged by the petitioner has not chosen to file any explanation, but it cannot be said that the impugned orders are bad. When once a notice is served to the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to offer his explanation whether he engages an advocate or not. However, as it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said advocate whom the petitioner engaged did not file the explanation, for the mistake or fault committed by the advocate, the petitioner’s interest may not be put to peril, hence, this Court is of the view that one more opportunity may be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned judgment, dated 20.11.2004, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa, confirming the order, dated 09.08.2004, passed by the Joint Collector, Kadapa, in Ref.No.11(2)/5280/98, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Joint Collector, Kadapa for adjudication of the case afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file his explanation. The petitioner shall file his detailed explanation invariably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 24th March 2011 DR