IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1359 OF 2010 Between: M.V.Subramanyam … PETITIONER And The State of A.P. … RESPONDENT This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1359 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer at Vijayawada. When Vigilance and Enforcement officials intercepted auto bearing No.AP 16TU 7836 at Kanakadurgamma Varadhi – National Highway No.5 junction, the auto was transporting 20 bags of P.D.S. rice each containing 50 kgs. The auto driver gave statement to the effect that the petitioner loaded the said rice into his auto for being transported to a particular place. On the same day, when there was inspection of fair price shop of the petitioner and ground balance was checked with reference to stock register balance, it was found that there was shortage of 1.86 quintals of P.D.S. rice and 1.40 quintals of A.A.Y. rice, totaling 3.26 quintals of rice. Therefore, the Joint Collector, Krishna District, at Machilipatnam, launched proceedings against the petitioner and others under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act by framing the following charges. Charge 1 : that there was shortage of 3.26 quintals in rice and thus he contravened the condition 4 (i) and 4 (ii) of the authorization issued under Andhra Pradesh State P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. Charge 2 : that the first respondent has diverted 10.00 quintals of P.D.S. Rice through Auto bearing No. AP 16TU 7836 with the help of second and third respondents and thus he violated the clause 17 of the Andhra Pradesh P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. Charge 3 : that the second and third respondents have helped the first respondent in diversion of 1.00 quintals of P.D.S. rice through Auto bearing No. AP 16TU 7836 and thus they violated the clause 17 of the A.P. State P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. Charge 4 : that the second respondent has been doing business in rice without any license or permission from the competent authority and he violated the clause 3 of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008. 2. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, Charge Nos.1 and 2 are against him. The petitioner filed written explanation before the Joint Collector contending that he handed over coupons to the complainant who did not accept the same at the time of inspection and that he has nothing to do with 10 quintals of rice seized from auto. Both the Joint Collector as well as the Sessions Judge disbelieved explanation of the petitioner and it resulted in confiscation of entire seized stocks in this case. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner did not contravene conditions 4 (i) and 4 (ii) of the authorization because he has been maintaining registers and accounts. Maintenance of registers and accounts includes maintaining them properly and not by cooking up entries therein. It is further contended that Clause 17 of the A.P. State P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, can be invoked for levy of penalty only. 4. Even though Clause 17 of the Control Order provides for levy of penalty, it does not absolve the authorities to order confiscation of the seized commodities in case there is making of false entries and diverting the stock. Explanation of the petitioner that he gave coupons to the Inspecting Officer, was not believed by both the authorities below. The petitioner has not only failed to explain shortage of ground stock of 3.26 quintals of rice, but also failed to account for 10 quintals of rice being transported illegally in an auto. Therefore, this Court finds that both the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. This Court does not find any reason to come to a different conclusion in this revision petition or to alter the quantity of confiscation in this revision petition, because it is a case of clandestine trade of public distribution system rice meant for the down trodden. 5. In the result, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 11, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1359 OF 2010 August 11, 2010 KL