THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1097 OF 2003 ORDER: 1 On a complaint that the petitioners are indulging in unauthorised purchase of groundnut pod from the ryots at cheaper rates, hoarding the same and after decardicating the same selling the resultant groundnut seed at higher rates without having any valid licence, the Inspector of Police, VCCSD, Guntur inspected the business premises of the petitioners on 22.11.1996 and on verification the Inspector found huge stocks of groundnut and on questioning the petitioners failed to produce any valid licence under the A.P. Prevention of Hoarding of Food Grains Order, 1973. In the light of the same, the entire stock was seized and the matter was reported to the Collector, pursuant to which the Joint Collector initiated proceedings under section 6 A of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioners. After notice and enquiry by his order dated 21.03.1997 the Joint Collector ordered confiscation of the entire stock in favour of the State. The said order was questioned by filing Criminal Appeal No.163 of 1999. However, the learned Special Judge at Guntur dismissed the said appeal on the ground that the petitioners were absent and there was no representation on their behalf. Hence the present revision. 2 Heard. 3 Apparently in response to the show cause notice, the first petitioner offered a detailed explanation admitting the fact that he has not secured Food Grains Licence from the office of the District Supply Officer and he further stated that he purchased the groundnuts and made trial for decardicating and obtained the groundnut seeds. In my considered view, the said admission clearly establishes the guilt of the petitioner. When he wants to carry on business in groundnuts, necessarily the petitioner shall obtain licence as provided for under the A.P. Prevention of Hoarding of Food Grains Order, 1973 from the competent authority. No doubt the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was absent. In the normal circumstances, this court would have remanded the matter to the appellate court but as the petitioner himself has admitted that he does not possess any valid licence and he purchased the groundnut and made trial for decardicating, this court is of the view that it is not a fit case where it requires remand. The order passed by the trial court is perfectly justified and needs no interference. 4 Accordingly this revision is dismissed. -------------- 12.08.2010 Kvsn