HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1367 of 2002 DATE:08.04.2010 Between: P. Narender and another … Petitioners and The UCO Bank, Malkajgiri Branch, Malkajgiri, R.R.District and another … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1367 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This revision is directed against the judgment dated 07.08.2002 passed by the learned Principal Sessions, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, in Crl.A.No.144 of 2001. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 17.10.1998 the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department, Ranga Reddy District, surprised M/s. Adarsh Filling Station, Yadavanagar, Malkajgiri, for which the 1st petitioner is the Manager and the 2nd petitioner is the dealer, and having found variation in the stock position of M.S. and H.S.D., he seized 2146 litres of M.S. and 3461 litres of H.S.D. worth Rs.1,11,841-60 ps. Thereafter, the seized stock has been released in favour of the petitioners on 21.10.1998 on their furnishing bank guarantee for Rs.1,12,000/-. A notice under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was issued to the petitioners to show cause as to why the seized stock should not be confiscated in favour of the Government, for which they submitted explanation seeking to drop the proceedings. Subsequently, the learned Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, after perusing the records placed before him, came to the conclusion that the petitioners have contravened Clause 12 (2) of the A.P. Petroleum Products (L & Rs) Order, 1980, in addition to variation of stock, and accordingly, ordered confiscation of 90% of the bank guarantee of Rs.1,12,000/- to the Government and also release of balance amount to the petitioners, by an order dated 06.02.1999. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.144 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, who allowed the appeal in part, by reducing the confiscation of 90% of the bank guarantee of Rs.1,12,000/- to 25%, by judgment dated 07.08.2002. The same is questioned in this revision. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, has to deduct the metre sales from dip sales and it cannot be vice-versa and the evaporation of handling loss should be calculated on annual average sales from 3.1.1998 to 17.10.1998 and if it is taken into consideration, the percentage of evaporation/handling loss would be within the permissible limit. 5. In fact, this aspect was gone into by the lower appellate court, and taking into consideration the same, it has taken a lenient view and reduced the confiscation of 90% of the bank guarantee of Rs.1,12,000/- to 25%. In my considered view, the said finding does not warrant any interference of this Court. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 8th April, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1367 of 2002 (Dismissed) 8th April, 2010 CBS