HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Crl.R.C.No.1196 of 2010 Date: 30-06-2010 Between: G. Venkatesu ……….. Petitioner and State of A.P., rep., by Public Prosecutor and others ……….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Crl.R.C.No.1196 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is sought to be filed against the order dated 04-03-2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Anantapur in Crl.M.P.No.277 of 2009 in an unnumbered Criminal Appeal. The petitioner filed the said petition in the lower Appellate Court for condonation of delay of 327 days in preferring the Appeal under Section 6(c) of the Essential Commodities Act (in short, the Act). Originally, the Joint Collector, Anantapur, passed order under Section 6-A of the Act on 26-05-2008 in Rc.No.K4/122/2007 confiscating 4% of the seized stock to the Government for contravention of A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (L&D) Order, 1982 and non- maintenance of records and registers of stock arrivals, sales and closing balances available with the petitioner. Two grounds urged by the petitioner in the lower Appellate Court for condoning the delay of 327 days are that he was suffering from illness and that he was threatened by the District Supply Officer and on advise by his elders and trading community, he did not file Appeal in time. In so far as the alleged threats of the District Supply Officer are concerned, there is no basis for the same. In any event, the petitioner did not stop filing Appeal on mere threats alone, but he took advice of his elders as well as trading community and on their suggestion he refrained from filing the Appeal. Now the petitioner turns around and wanted to file Appeal before the lower Appellate Court after delay of 327 days. In so far as his illness is concerned, it is not his case that he stopped his business totally for all these 327 days because of his illness. When he was doing his business effectively, the alleged illness cannot prevent him from filing an Appeal. The lower Court came to right conclusion and dismissed the petition refusing to condone delay. There are no merits in this Revision Petition. Hence, the Revision Petition is dismissed. ___________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date:30-06-2010 YCR