THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.339 of 2011 JUDGMENT: On credible information that the petitioner herein was transporting rice from his house to M/s Lakshmirama Traders, Bhimavaram, respondents herein inspected the house of the petitioner on 19.09.2008 and found him doing clandestine business by purchasing and storing P.D.S. rice from consumer and selling the same after converting into flour to the needy consumers at high rates, thereby violated the provisions of Clause 17 of the A.P.P.D.S. (Control Order 2001) r/w Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’). As there was no proper explanation, the ground stock worth Rs.3,46,740/- was seized and the matter was reported to the Joint Collector for initiation of necessary proceedings. Pursuant to the said reference, the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act has been initiated and the petitioner was served with a notice calling for his explanation. The Joint Collector, Eluru, after holding an enquiry, rejected the contentions put forth by the petitioner, and found that the petitioner violated the provisions of Clause 17 of the A.P.P.D.S. (Control Order 2001) r/w Section 6-A of the Act, and accordingly, by order, dated 03.06.2010, ordered confiscation of 50% of the value of the seized stock. The said order, dated 03.06.2010, was questioned by filing an appeal in E.C.C.M.A.No.55 of 2009 under Section 6-C of the Act. By judgment, dated 13.12.2010, the learned Principal District Judge, Eluru, while holding that the finding arrived at by the Collector was correct, however, reduced the confiscation from 50% to 25% and directed the respondents to release 25% of the seized stock and if it is sold or not available the value thereof be refunded to the appellant. The said judgment is challenged in this revision. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the stock available with the petitioner tallied with the book balance and absolutely there is no irregularity on the part of the petitioner, which warrants confiscation of the seized stock. 4. Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the relevant material available on record, this Court is of the view that for the violation of provisions of the Control Order, petitioner could not offer proper explanation. In fact, the authorities below not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner for the violation of the provisions of the Control Order, ordered confiscation. I see no merits in this revision. However, as the Court below has taken a lenient view and reduced the confiscation to 25%, this Court is of the view that further lenience should be shown and accordingly, the confiscation is reduced to 15%. 5. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 18th February, 2011. Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 21-02-2011. B/o Tsy