IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1441 OF 2003 BETWEEN: D. Nagasing Rao S/o. D. Mallaiah and another …. Petitioners AND State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1441 OF 2003 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners D. Narsing Rao and S. A. Rahman under Sections 397 & 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”), against the judgment dated 13-06-2003 in Criminal Appeal No.187 of 2000 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the order of confiscation of seized stock dated 23-10-2000 in case No.A7/436/2000 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, was confirmed, reducing the percentage from 50% to 25%. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the revision case may be stated as follows: On the information that, the petitioners said to have engaged in clandestine business by not maintaining true and correct accounts and gaining illegal profits by selling adulterated Petroleum Products, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell, C./S. Department, visited the business place of the petitioners viz., M/s. Kukatpally Service Station, IBP Dealer, on 10-04-2000 at 4-00 PM. At the time of inspection, petitioner No.2 was present and petitioner No.1 was not available. Petitioner No.2 produced various licences and registers. On physical verification, the Deputy Superintendent of Police found variation of 231 liters in respect of motor spirit and 473 liters in respect of High Speed Diesel, which is beyond permissible limit. Therefore, a complaint was lodged before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, against the petitioners for violation of clauses 3 and 22 of the A.P. Petroleum Products (L&RS) Order, 1980 and conditions 3,4,5,6 (i) (ii) (iii), Section 7 and 10 of the Licence issued thereunder, Clause 5 of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Prevention of Malpractice in Supply and Distribution) Order, 1998 and Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 3. The Joint Collector after taking cognizance, issued a show cause notice under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act to the petitioners, for which a reply was given stating that they were having a valid licence to deal with the petroleum products. The learned Joint Collector after hearing the Department Officials and the petitioners, ordered for confiscation of 50% value of the seized stock in favour of the Government. Challenging the said confiscation order, petitioners preferred an appeal and the appellate Court while confirming the confiscation, reduced the percentage of confiscation from 50% to 25%. Aggrieved of the same, this revision is filed by the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the explanation submitted by the petitioners has not been considered by the Joint Collector and that there is no material to show that the petitioners were indulging in black marketing and adulteration of petroleum products and that there was no violation of any of the clauses or conditions and therefore, prays to allow the revision. 5. Now the point for determination is whether the judgment of the appellate Court and the confiscation order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District are correct, legal and proper ? 6. There cannot be any dispute that revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 I.P.C. are truncated one. Unless it is shown that the findings of the Courts below are incorrect or improper, ordinarily, this Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 7. When the Vigilance Police inspected the Kukatpally Filling Station of the petitioners on 10-4-2000 at 4-00 PM., they found variation of 231 liters of motor spirit and 473 liters of high speed diesel. The variation was estimated after permissible limits of variation of 4%. No explanation was forthcoming from the petitioners for the excess quantity of petroleum products found. There was no explanation as to why he was not maintaining the registers properly. Therefore, the entire stock was seized. Except stating that they have a valid licence to deal with the petroleum products, the petitioners have not given proper explanation for the variation. According to them, the motor spirit is within the permissible limit. But, there is no reason to disbelieve the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department with regard to verification of ground stock with reference to the book balance. 8. Therefore, none of the findings of the appellate Court as well as the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, are shown to be perverse or contrary, calling for any inference by this Court. So, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the appellate Court as well as the order of confiscation of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J December 02, 2009. KTL