THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.2180 of 2010 (DATED : 01-12-2010) Between: Parvatha Satyanarayana Murthy S/o Narasimha Rao East Godavari Disrict ….Petitioner A n d State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of A.P., ….Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.2180 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the judgment dated 24th August 2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No.106 of 2010 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, whereby and whereunder, the learned Principal Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the order dated 2.2.2010 passed by the Joint Collector–cum-Additional District Magistrate, East Godavari, Kakinada in Ref. No.V3/CS/829/07. 2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this revision by Parvatha Satyanarayana Murthy are: Parvatha Satyanarayana Murthy is a Fair Price Shop dealer (F.P.Shop No.6) in Sankavaram village. Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Mandaeta surprised the fair price shop of the petitioner and found variations in stocks. On noticing variations in stocks, the Inspecting Officers questioned the dealer to furnish reasons for the variations. The fair-price shop dealer failed to furnish proper reasons for the variations in stocks. The inspecting officers registered a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the dealer and seized the stocks in the presence of the mediators. The stocks seized in the presence of the mediators are:- 1. PDS Rice 0.80 qtls 2. Sugar 0.40 qtls 3. Kerosene 300 litres Total Value : Rs.4010/- 3. A show cause notice was issued to the dealer calling upon him to explain as to why the entire stocks should not be confiscated to the Government. The dealer appeared before the Joint Collector through a counsel and sought for dropping of the proceedings and for release of the seized stocks. His explanation is that he issued ration to the new card-holders as per the oral instructions of M.R.O. His further explanation is that the Head Masters who received rice did not acknowledge the receipt of the same and thus variations in stocks occurred. The Joint Collector, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, ordered confiscation of the entire seized stocks to the Government under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, by order dated 2.2.2010. Assailing the order, the dealer filed Criminal Appeal No.106 of 2010. The appellate authority, on considering the material brought on record, and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to allow the appeal in part setting aside the order of the primary authority limiting the seizure of the stocks to the extent of actual variations. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the judgment impugned in the revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the inspecting officials arrived at variations without taking into consideration the minimum marginal variations and therefore, the order passed by the primary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority with regard to seizure of the stocks is liable to be set aside. The worth of the seized stocks from the fair price shop of the dealer is Rs. 4,010/- . The details of the seized property have been indicated in the report submitted to the Joint Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. For better appreciation, I may refer the particulars of the seized stock as mentioned in the 6-A proceedings : “We have verified and weighed the stocks physically found available in the F.P.Shop in the presence of mediators and found the following stocks. 1. PDS Rice 0.80 Qtls 2. Sugar 0.40 Qtls 3. Kerosene 300 lirs.” 6. The worth of the seized stock is stated to be Rs.4,500/-. Considering the variations in the stocks, confiscation of the seized stocks to the extent of actual variations cannot be said to be on high side. Therefore, I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision case fails and the same is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.01-12-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision case No.2180 of 2010 Trd.to CMSO DATED : 01-12-2010