HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.855 of 2002 ORDER: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in Crl.A.No.115 of 1999 dated 14.12.2000 confirming the order of confiscation of 25% of value of the seized stocks in favour of the Government passed by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Nalgonda, in Case No.CS1/51/97 dated 03.08.1999. It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.06.1997, the 3rd respondent-Inspector of Police, V.C.C.S.D., Nalgonda, inspected the shop of the 1st revision petitioner i.e., M/s.Thirumala Binny Rice Mill, Nagaram village of Valigonda Mandal and found the 2nd revision petitioner, who is the Managing Partner of the rice mill, was conducting business in the said rice mill and when checked, he found that the rice mill is being run without maintaining prescribed records in Form-A & B and not possessing Food Grains Licence and also indulging in clandestine business and, therefore, he seized the stocks. Pursuant thereto, on the basis of the report furnished by the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice under Section 6-B of the E.C. Act dated 05.07.1997 calling for the explanation of the petitioner as to why the seized stocks shall not be confiscated. Subsequently, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 03.08.1999 confiscating 25% of the value of the seized stock in favour of the Government. The 1st respondent further directed the 2nd respondent to release the remaining seized stock of paddy and rice to the owners who claimed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners preferred an appeal being Crl.A.No.115 of 1999 and the same was dismissed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, by judgment dated 14.12.2000. Hence the criminal revision petition. Heard both sides. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on either side and having perused the impugned orders, this Court is of the view that the percentage of confiscation imposed by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector is not on higher side. Both the Courts have concurrently found that the revision petitioners have indulged in clandestine business. That apart, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners has also not produced any other material before me, which would discredit the evidence on record. In the circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the appellate Court confirming the Order of confiscation passed by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 07-04-2010 Gsn.