THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Criminal Revision Case No.1442 of 2003 (Dated: 04.12.2009) Between: Vanamreddy Nagesh S/o Dharmaravulu and another …Petitioners A n d The State through the Inspector of Police, VCCSD, Ranga Reddy District rep. by the Public Prosecutor …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Criminal Revision Case No.1442 of 2003 ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, `Cr.P.C’) is directed against the judgment, dated 13.6.2003, made in Crl.A.No.194 of 2002, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Case No.A7/4387/97, dated 29.5.1999, in confiscating 90% of the stock seized was confirmed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present revision may be stated as follows:- The Vigilance Inspector, on credible information that the petitioners are doing clandestine business, surprised the shop of M/s. Srinidhi Traders situated at Ferozguda, Ranga Reddy District on 28.11.1997. During investigation, they found that the petitioner was not at all maintaining the Registers. Therefore, a complaint is lodged before the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector framed a charge as follows:- “The respondent is indulging in clandestine business by selling the scheduled commodities on higher rates and not maintaining true and correct accounts, thereby the respondents contravened Cl.3, 3(2) (B&C), 5,7, (1) of A.P. Exhibition of Price List of goods orders, 1966 Cl.8,9,11 of L & D Order, Cl.4 of Pulses, E.Oil seeds and E.Oils Storage Control Order, 1977 Cl.3 of the A.P. Rice Storage Control Order, 1981 Cl.12 Condition 2(C ), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (i) of the Licence of A.P.S.C.D ( L&D) Order, 1982”. 3. An explanation was given by the accused and the said explanation was not accepted by the learned Joint Collector and therefore, ordered confiscation of 90% of the seized stock. Challenging the same, a Criminal Appeal is filed before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The learned Prl. Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the Joint Collector. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that there is no material to show that the petitioners are indulging in clandestine business by selling the scheduled commodities on higher rates and that the lower appellate Court has not given any reasons for confirming the order of the Joint Collector and it has not independently decided the case on hand, in view of the fact that it was the last Court with regard to finding of fact and that the learned Joint Collector has given a finding contrary to the charge framed and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned judgment. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor contended that the concurrent findings of the two Courts below need not be interfered with and hence, she prays to dismiss the revision. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the impugned orders are correct, legal and proper?. 7. There cannot be any dispute that the revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., are truncated. Unless a finding is shown to be illegal or incorrect or improper, normally this Court would not interfere with the same. A finding can be said to be perverse when it is not based upon any evidence on record. It is not disputed before this Court that the Vigilance police inspected the shop of the accused on 28.11.1997 at 10 am and found 71 quintals 50 kgs of rice and 20 litrs of sun flower oil worth about Rs.1,60,000/- in the premises of the shop of the petitioner. Basing on the panchanama conducted on the same day, the police registered a case and arrested the accused. The investigation conducted by the police established that the petitioner was indulging in transactions involving purchase, sale and storage for sale of commodities in a speculative manner, prejudicial to the maintenance and easy availability of scheduled commodities in the market and getting illegal profits. 8. An explanation was given by the petitioner stating that he purchased the stocks under proper bills after obtaining licence. Though, the petitioner obtained food- grains licence on 15.10.1997, he kept the same idle without entering the transactions regarding purchase and sales in the Registers with an intention to indulge in clandestine business in order to gain illegal profits. No explanation was forth coming as to why the required registers are not maintained, which is a contravention. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not maintaining the registers at all. So, the necessary inference that can be drawn is that the petitioner was doing speculative business to gain unlawfully. Though the petitioner has validly purchased the commodities through bills, that itself is not sufficient for doing the business. He must show in the accounts and concerned Registers issued by the District Supply Officer so that the stocks are being sold in retail to the consumers at appropriate rate. 9. The reasons behind the intention of the petitioner for not maintaining the registers are obvious. Even though the first paragraph of the charge indicates that the petitioner was doing clandestine business, there is no material to infer that he was indulging in clandestine business. But, at the same time, admittedly, not maintaining the registers, which he is supposed to maintain, would indicate that the transactions of the petitioner are not above board. Therefore, both the Courts gave a concurrent finding and they need not require any interference. 10. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed confirming the judgment dated 13.6.2003 in Crl.A.No.194 of 2002 on the file of the Prl. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar. ______________ K.C.BHANU, J Dt.04.12.2009 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Criminal Revision Case No.1442 of 2003 (Dated: 04.12.2009)