THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.338 of 2011 JUDGMENT: Petitioner is the proprietor of Sri Venkata Ramana Rice Stores, Bhimavaram. On credible information, respondents herein inspected the business premises of the petitioner on 07.01.2009 and found him doing clandestine business by not maintaining the records and accounts properly, resulting in occurrence of variation of (-) 11.82 quintals 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.2,59,875/- 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 contravened the provisions of Act 17 (1) (a) to (d) and 18 (2) (c) of the A.P.Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008, read with Section 6-A of the Act and accordingly, by order, dated 18.09.2009, ordered confiscation of 90% of the value of the seized stock. The said order, dated 18.09.2009, was questioned by filing an appeal in E.C.C.M.A.No.58 of 2009 under Section 6-C of the Act. By judgment, dated 02.12.2010, the learned Principal District Judge, Eluru, while holding that the finding arrived at by the Collector was correct, however, reduced the confiscation from 90% to 50% and directed the respondents to release 40% of the seized stock. The said judgment is challenged in this revision. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent authorities did not take into consideration the credit sales made on the date of inspection and the stock book will be updated at the close of the day and if the said credit sales are taken into account, there is no variation at all and that the petitioner stored the stock available with him in the authorized godown, which is duly accounted for in the stock books and hence the question of indulging in any clandestine business by the petitioner herein does not arise. 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 50%, this Court is of the view that further lenience should be shown and, accordingly, the confiscation is reduced to 25%. 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