THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1581 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The Deputy Tahsildar, (CS), Kodakandla, Warangal District, surprised the shop of the petitioner herein on 29.09.2008 and found 141.70 quintals of fine rice and 35 quintals of broken rice. When questioned, the petitioner appears to have stated that he does not possess any licence. Though prior to 08.08.2008, there was no necessity of having any licence, by virtue of the orders passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.30, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.1) Department, dated 08.08.2008, even a petty dealer is expected to have the licence issued under the relevant Control Order. As the petitioner was not having the licence as on the date of the inspection i.e., on 29.09.2008, the Deputy Tahsildar, Kodakandla, seized the entire commodities and reported the matter to the Joint Collector, Warangal, for initiation of necessary proceedings. Pursuant thereto, the Joint Collector, Warangal initiated the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and issued a notice, for which the petitioner offered a detailed explanation. After holding a detailed enquiry and not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the Joint Collector, Warangal, confiscated 50% of the stock that has been seized. The said order of the Joint Collector, dated 22.12.2008, was questioned before the Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal by filing Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2009. However, the learned Judge while concurring with the said findings of the Joint Collector, Warangal, by the judgment, dated 21.04.2010 reduced the confiscation to 25% of the value of the seized stock. The same is questioned in this Revision. Heard both sides. It is mainly contended by Sri A.Prabhakar Ro, learned counsel for the petitioner, that it is only from 08.08.2008, the said G.O. has come into force and even in the said order, a grace period of 30 days was provided for to obtain the required licence, and that the petitioner had applied for the licence, but the same was not yet issued. Further, it is his contention that the petitioner is a petty dealer and he does not know the legal consequences. I am unable to appreciate either of the said submissions. Keeping the interest of the petty dealers only, the Government while issuing the said G.O. granted a grace period of 30 days enabling the petty dealers like the petitioner to obtain the required licence. That period was over on 07.09.2008. If really, it is a fact that the petitioner applied for grant of licence, nothing prevented him from producing a copy of the application seeking grant of licence, but nothing of that sort has been done. The alleged inspection was on 29.09.2008 i.e., long after the expiry of the said grace period of 30 days. It is clear that the petitioner has not applied for any licence and he is carrying on the said business without having any valid licence. Hence, this Court is of the view that the order of confiscation passed by both the authorities appears to be correct. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a petty dealer and the said G.O. has come into force very recently, i.e. on 08.08.2008, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken and accordingly, the judgment, dated, 21.04.2010, rendered by the Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal, in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2009, confiscating 25% of the value of the seized stock is modified to that of confiscating 15% of the value of the seized stock. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of at the stage of admission. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 09th September 2010 dr