THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2028 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment, dated 31.08.2010, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam in Crl.A.No.130 of 2009, whereunder and whereby the order, dated 18.11.2009, passed by the District Collector, Khammam in M.C.No.122 of 2009 ordering to confiscate the excess quantity of paddy weighing 535.20 quintals and broken rice weighing 46 quintals, was modified to that of confiscation of 50% of the said stock. The brief facts are that on receipt of credible information that some of the rice millers in Kalluru Village were doing clandestine business in PDS rice by procuring from unscrupulous persons and re-cycled the same in their mills and selling the same in the open market at higher rate, the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Sathupali along with enforcement team conducted raid on M/s Vijayasri Dal and Rice Industry, Kallur, to which the accused is the proprietor, on 30.09.2009 and verified the records of the mill and noticed certain irregularities, which are as follows: - (1) 200.00 quintals of rice which was delivered to the FCI, Khammam on 19.03.2009 through FCI Depot receipt No.9037, 19.03.2009 was not deducted from the total rice stocks available in B-Register by the respondent upto 30.09.2009. (2) As per tax invoice registers, 405.00 quintals of rice was sold away by the respondent in retail market in Khammam and other districts without any permit from the Collector (CS), Khammam and without reflecting the sales entries in the B-Register. (3) Out of total 459.70 quintals of paddy milled on 19.06.2009, 307.99 quintals of resultant rice was yielded. Out o these quantities only 207.99 quintals of rice was added to the closing balance in B-Register instead of 307.99 quintals. Thus total 100.00 quintals of rice was not accounted for by the respondent even upto 30.09.2009. (4) Purchased super fine paddy in addition to the quantity shown in the B-Register without any bill or rythu vouchers and was not brought to the B-Register. Further, the paddy thus purchased was milled in M/s Vijayasri Dal and Rice Industry, Khammam and the resultant rice and broken rice of such paddy was sold in open market at higher rates without any valid permission from the Collector (CS) Khammam. (5) On verification of records, 15.10 quintals of paddy, 535.20 quintals of rice and 46.00 quintals of broken rice was available excess with the respondent than the actual stock to be available i.e, procured huge quantity unauthorisedly and milled the same. (6) Failed to maintain proper accounts in the B-Register. (7) Failed to maintain C-Register for the scheduled commodity i.e., rice which was sold during 2008-09 crop year and failed to submit the C-returns to the licensing authority. In the light of the above search and the irregularities, the authorities were satisfied that the petitioner is doing clandestine business and accordingly, the entire ground stock was seized and the matter was reported to the District Collector for initiation of the proceedings under Section 6(c) of the Essential Commodities Act. The District Collector, Khammam, in turn, initiated the proceedings under Section 6 (c) of the Essential Commodities Act and issued a notice to the petitioner, to which, he offered a detailed explanation. Having held an enquiry into the said allegations, the District Collector, Khammam by her order, dated 18.11.2009, ordered confiscation of the stock which is in variation. The said order was questioned by filing Crl.A.No.130 of 2009 and the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, while holding that the petitioner is doing clandestine business, however reduced the confiscation to 50%. As stated supra, the said order is questioned in this Revision. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner- Sri N.Siva Reddy is that the lower appellate authority solely on the ground that the petitioner is not maintaining the records properly and committed the acts of omission or commission in adding and deducting the quantity of mill products in B-register, ordered confiscation of 50% of the seized stock. According to him, the said non- maintenance of records properly and the said acts of omission and commission in adding and deducting the quantity of rice products in B.register are trivial and in those circumstances, the lower appellate authority ought not to have confiscated 50% of the seized stock. Heard. In the light of the said submissions, this Court looked into the record. It is not as simple as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The charges framed against the petitioner are not technical and from a perusal of the orders passed by the authorities below, it appears that the petitioner was doing clandestine business. For instance, one of the charges is that the petitioner has milled 459.70 quintals of paddy on 19.06.2009, out of which he secured 307.99 quintals of rice, but he has shown only 207.99 quintals in the B-register. From the above, it is clear that he did not account for 100 quintals of rice in the B- register. When once the total procurement of rice is 307.99 quintals of rice he ought to have shown the same in the B- register maintained by him. But, curiously 100 quintals of rice is missing and no explanation has been offered by him with regard to the said variation. Similarly, the other charges also are very grave. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that the lower appellate Court has rightly concluded that the petitioner was indulged in clandestine business and it is not with regard to the maintenance of the accounts only, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, I see no merits in the Criminal Revision Case and the same is hereby dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the confiscation of the stock is reduced to 25% as against the order passed by the lower appellate Court ordering to confiscate 50%. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 14th February 2011 DR