HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:2102 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the lessee of Balaji Binny Rice Mill, Warangal. The police patrolling party intercepted one TATA van bearing No.AP 36 W 5075 and found 75.00 quintals of rice from Sneha Binny Rice Mill, Langapuram village of Chennaraopet Mandal. On enquiry, the driver of the vehicle stated that the rice was loaded at Sneha Binny Rice Mill at Lingapuram village and being transported to Balaji Binny Rice Mill, Warangal. In the light of the said statement from the driver, the District Supply Officer, inspected the business premises of the petitioner on 20-8.2008 and verified the ground stock in the presence of mediators. As it was admitted by the petitioner with regard to the rice being transported through Van bearing No.AP 36 W 5075 and he is not having valid receipts with regard to the purchase from the farmers and also he is not maintaining the stock registers properly, the entire stock, which was found in the said rice mill, was seized and the matter was reported to the Collector for initiation of proceedings under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act. The Collector thereafter issued a notice under Section 6-B of the Act calling for explanation from the petitioner and a detailed explanation was offered. The Collector while holding that the charge of purchase of paddy at below minimum supply price is not proved, however, found that the petitioner failed to deliver 75% of rice derived from out of paddy purchased by him as mill levy, as per G.O.Ms.No.5, dated 6.2.2008, and ordered confiscation of 20% value of the seized stocks. The said order of the Collector was questioned by filing an appeal under section 6-C of the Act before the Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal. The learned Judge while sustaining the findings of the District Collector reduced the said confiscation of 20% value of the seized stock to that of 10%. The same is questioned in this revision. Heard. Apparently, the petitioner failed to deliver 75% of rice derived out of paddy purchased by him as mill levy and thus, he contravened Clauses 3 and 4 of the A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. So far as the other charges viz., purchase of paddy at below minimum supply price are concerned as they are not proved, the learned Sessions Judge has taken a lenient view and ordered confiscation of 10% only. I do not see any merits in this revision. But however, as the said confiscation was effected in the year 2008 and the charge is trivial in nature, this Court is inclined to reduce the confiscation from 10% value of the seized stock to that of 5% . Except to the above modification, in all other respects, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ___________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada Dated: 8.2.2011 Nn HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:2102 OF 2010 8.2.2011