THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE CRL.R.C.NO : 522 of 2003 Between: G.Ramachandrudu ..... ACCUSED AND State of AP, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRL.R.C.No.522 of 2003 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 05-02-2003 in Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, whereunder and whereby, the order of confiscation of the entire value of the seized stocks amounting to Rs.4,51,512-50 p.s. passed by the Joint Collector, Kurnool in Rc.Cs.1.Ec.No.95 of 1999, was modified to that of confiscation of 25% of the value of the seized stocks amounting to Rs.1,12,878/-. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the revision case may be stated as follows: On 24-07-1999, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department, Kurnool, along with his staff and mediators proceeded to Sri Rama Rice Mill located in Door No.1-37-90, Harijanawada, Banaganapalle, and found one person in the mill attending the repairs of some parts of the mill, and on enquiry, he revealed his name as Shaik Shaunshavali and stated that he was working as Mill Driver for four years, and that one Ramachandrudu is the proprietor of the mill and that the proprietor and his son Siva Prasad are looking after the business of the rice mill and they went to Nandyal on some private work. On demand, the driver of the mill produced all the records and licence issued under the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licence and Distribution) Order, 1982 (for short ‘the Order, 1982’). On search, they found 150 quintals of sona masuri paddy in 300 packets each weighing 50 kgs, 40 quintals of hamsa rice in 40 bags, each containing 100 kgs; 47 quintals of hamsa rice in 94 packets each weighing 50 kgs; 251.25 quintals of sona masuri paddy in 335 bags each containing 75 kgs; 30 quintals of hamsa paddy in 40 bags each containing 75 kgs; 54 quintals of broken rice in 54 bags each weighing 100 kgs; and 18 quintals of broken rice in 37 packets each weighing 50 kgs. On verification of the ground stock with reference to the book balance, they found variation i.e. shortage of 102 quintals of sona masuri and hamsa paddy, and 128.50 quintals of broken rice and hamsa rice, and excess of 94.00 quintals of sona masuri and hamsa rice. They found that the variations are beyond the admissible limits. It is further case of the complainant that when the lorry bearing Regn. No.AP 21/T-6318 carrying hamsa rice and broken rice on permit No.1527, dated 14-05-1999, issued by the District Supply Officer, Kurnool, to Sri Rama Rice Mill, Banaganapalle, for disposal of 100 quintals of broken rice to Maharastra State, was checked, it was found that they were transporting half load of rice and half load of broken rice. Therefore, the accused gained illegal profits transporting hamsa rice instead of transporting broken rice. Owing to the above irregularities, the Inspector of police seized the available stocks and submitted a report to the Joint Collector, Kurnool, under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act for taking action. 3. The Joint Collector, after receiving the report, framed the following charges: Firstly, the accused failed to maintain true and correct accounts resulting in huge variation in the stock position and thus they were indulging in clandestine business for gaining illegal profits and thereby contravened condition Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 12 of the Licence and Clause Nos. 8,9 and 12 of the Order, 1982. Secondly, the accused, being trading rice miller, was indulging in custom milling without the permission of the competent authorities and thereby contravened Clause 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Trading Rice Mills (Restriction on Custom Milling) Order, 1978. Thirdly, the accused instead of transporting broken rice, transported half load of rice and half load of broken rice to Maharashtra State under the guise of permit issued for broken rice for gaining illegal profits, and thereby contravened condition Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 12 of the Licence and Clause Nos. 8,9 and 12 of the Order 1982. 4. The accused filed explanation stating that the Vigilance Inspector has purposely not taken into consideration for about 100 quintals of paddy, which was given for milling prior to the inspection and that 100 quintals of paddy yielded about 75 quintals of rice and the entries are not made to that effect. Though the driver explained the details to the complainant, the vigilance police without heeding to the same, foisted a false case against the accused and that the variation is negligible and thus the same is within the permissible limits. 5. Considering the explanation and material on record, the Joint Collector found that the charges levelled against the accused are proved, and accordingly, ordered confiscation of entire seized stocks. On appeal, the confiscation of the seized stock was reduced from 100% to 25%. Assailing the order of confiscation, the accused filed the present revision case. 6. Now, the point for determination is whether the judgment of the lower appellate Court is correct, legal and proper and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused. 7. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the agriculturists gave 100 quintals of paddy to the accused for milling which would yield about 75 quintals of rice and at the end of the same day, it will be noted in the register concerned, and if 75 quintals of rice is deleted from the excess quantity of rice, there is no variation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent- authorities contended that both the Courts below had proper appreciation of evidence on record and rightly passed the order and hence, none of the findings is shown to be incorrect or illegal. 9. The Revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless the findings are illegal or incorrect or improper, normally, this Court will not interfere with the same. 10. The inspection of the rice mill of the accused by the Vigilance Inspector is not in dispute. Admittedly, the accused was not present at the time of inspection and the driver of the mill was present. As seen from the records on verification of ground stocks with reference to the book balance, the vigilance officials found variation with the shortage of 102 quintals of sona masuri and hamsa paddy and in respect of broken rice, there is a shortage of 128.50 quintals of broken rice. Regarding rice, 94 quintals of sona masuri and hamsa rice found in excess. It is not in dispute that the variations are beyond the permissible limits. The explanation of the accused is that some ryots gave 100 quintals of rice for milling, the same would yield 75 quintals of rice. The accused ought to have entered into the register with regard to the paddy sending for milling but the same was not entered in the registers concerned. No proper explanation was given by the accused. The accused has not only to enter the same in the register concerned with regard to the brining of paddy by the ryots to the mill, but also to enter in the register the yield of rice after the paddy is milled. These aspects have been clearly violated by the accused. 11. Further, though the accused obtained licence for transporting broken rice, on verification, it was found that half of the load in the lorry was rice, which shows the intention of the accused to do clandestine business. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the Joint Collector is rightly justified in ordering confiscation of the said stock, however, inasmuch as the lower appellate Court found that charge Nos. 1 and 3 have been proved and charge No.2 has not been proved, it reduced the confiscation of the seized stock to 25%, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be improper or illegal. Hence, I see no grounds to interfere with the judgments under challenge. 13. Accordingly, the Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 05-02-2003 in Crl.A.No.57 of 2001. ____________________ 11th November, 2009 kvr