HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1187 OF 2010 DATE:25.06.2010 Between: M/s. Sri Sivani Rice Traders, R.R. District. …….Petitioner And: The Joint Collector (CS.)II, R.R. District, rep. by PP., High Court of AP. ……Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1187 OF 2010 ORDER: Allegations against the petitioner/trader were threefold before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, viz., 1) that the petitioner did not apply for renewal of food grains dealers license before expiry of the license period and even within 30 days grace period thereafter and continued to do business; 2) that there was variation in stock to an extent of 6 quintals of rice; and 3) that the petitioner was selling rice at the rate of Rs.25/- per kg. over and above the rate fixed by the Government. Contraventions alleged against the petitioners are under Clause(3) and Conditions (i) to (v) of APSCD (L,S & R) Order 2008. The petitioner after receiving show-cause notice filed explanation before the Joint Collector by way of written submission contending that due to some domestic problems he did not submit application for renewal of license within the prescribed period and that there was no variation of 6 quintals of rice because the inspection party did not take into account the current bills under which they were sold and that the rice is being sold at proper price. After hearing, the Joint Collector found that there is contravention of Clause (3) Condition (i) of the above Control Order and ordered confiscation of 100% of seized stock of 198 quintals of rice. It appears that the Joint Collector was satisfied with the explanation offered by the dealer with regard to variation in stock of rice and rate at which the trader was selling the rice. On appeal, the Principal Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District confirmed order of the Joint Collector observing that the appellate court has no jurisdiction to vary percentage of confiscated quantity of the seized stock. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that inspection of business premisis of the petitioner took place on 04.05.2009, four days after grace period of 30 days after expiry of license period and that the petitioner immediately applied for renewal of license on the same day. Thus, the fact remains that the petitioner has contravened Clause(3) and Condition (i) of the above control order by not applying for renewal of license before expiry of the license period and within 30 days thereafter allowed as grace period. The petitioner pleads domestic problems for the said delay. Inspite of the alleged domestic problems, the petitioner was very busy in doing his business, but without a license and without finding time for applying for renewal of his license. There is no valid explanation for the said contravention. Both the courts below rightly held that the petitioner has contravened Clause(3) and Condition (i) of the APSCD (L,S&R) Order 2008. For each and other contravention of the control order, seizure of stock to the extent of 100% is not compulsory. It is the maximum provided under the Act. The appellate court has got discretion to modify the said order by way of altering percentage of confiscated seized stock. The lower appellate court has failed to exercise the said discretion. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case and having regard to quantity of the seized stock, this Court is of the opinion that confiscation of 40% of the seized stock is just and appropriate in this case. In the result, the revision case is dismissed, but modifying quantity of confiscation from 100% to 40% of the seized stock. ____________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. Date:25.06.2010. GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1187 OF 2010 Date:25.06.2010 Gk.