HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.251 of 2003 ORDER: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Prakasam Division, Ongole, passed in Crl.A.No.170 of 1998 dated 15.11.2002 confirming the order of confiscation of 50% of the seized stock in favour of the Government instead of entire seized stock as ordered by the 2nd respondent- Joint Collector, Ongole, in Case No.Rc.H1/6A/23/93 dated 30.11.1995. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.04.1993, the 1st respondent-Inspector of Police, V.C.C.S.D., Ongole, inspected the go-down of the revision petitioner and when checked, he found that he is doing business without any licence and, therefore, he seized the entire stock of rice. Pursuant thereto, on the basis of the report furnished by the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice calling for the explanation of the revision petitioner as to why the seized stock shall not be confiscated in favour of the Government. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 30.11.1995 confiscating entire seized stock in favour of the Government. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal being Crl.A.No.170 of1998 and the same was allowed in part by the Sessions Judge, Ongole, vide judgment dated 15.11.2002 confirming the confiscation of 50% of the seized stock in favour of the Government instead of entire seized stock as ordered by the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, Ongole, in Case No.Rc.H1/6A/23/93 dated 30.11.1995. Questioning the said order, the revision petitioner preferred this 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 appellate Court rightly reduced the percentage of stocks from 100% to 50% and the said percentage of confiscation is not on higher side. That apart, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner 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 reducing the Order of confiscation passed by the 2nd respondent. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 15-07-2010 Gsn.