HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:136 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The petitioner is the partner of Pandarinath Industries, Thimmapur Village, Hanamkonda Mandal. This revision is directed against the orders of the Collector, Warangal, dated 28.5.2009 in ECAC No.38 of 2009 as modified by the Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal, by order dated 28.7.2010 in Crl.A.No.103 of 2009 ordering 10% of the confiscation. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 9.5.2009, the complainant-AGPO along with DT (CS), Hasanparthy, UDRI (ML), Warangal and mediators surprised M/s. Pandarinath Industries at Thimmapur and verified the stock register in Form B and found variation in the book balance as compared with the ground balance and also found variation in the accounts maintained in Form-B register and seized ground balance for violation of condition 3 of the Licence issued under Clause 3(ii) of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licencing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 r/w Clause 16 of the Rice Procurement (Levy) Order 1984. The matter was reported to the Collector for initiation of necessary proceedings. Pursuant to the said reference, the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act had been initiated and the petitioner was served with a notice calling for his explanation. The District Collector, Warangal, after holding an enquiry, rejected the contentions put forth by the petitioner and ordered confiscation of 20% value of the seized stock. The said order, dated 28.05.2009 was questioned by filing an appeal before the Sessions Court, Warangal, under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act and the same was numbered as Crl.A.No.103 of 2009 and the learned Sessions Judge, by judgment, dated 28.07.2010, while confirming the findings of the District Collector, reduced the confiscation of 20% value of the seized stock to 10%. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred by the petitioner. Heard and perused the material available on record. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the mill is having two tonne milling capacity that means the petitioner can have maximum stock limit of all the grains upto 72,000 quintals and as per G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 25.11.2008, the petitioner can have 10% of the superfine paddy from out of the total stock limit. According to him, as on the date of inspection, the petitioner was in possession of 30,678 quintals of paddy and the Collector wrongly calculated the said 10% from out of the stocks, which are available, but not from out of the maximum stock limit. Had the Collector taken into consideration the said fact, there is no excess. Heard. On perusal of the material available on record, it appears that as on the date of inspection, stock of 4160.10 quintals of preferred variety paddy was found. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the seized stock of 4,160.10 quintals is less than the permissible limit i.e., 7,200 quintals. The Collector as well as the Sessions Judge erred in calculating the said 10% from out of the stock, which was found in possession of the petitioner. Had they taken the said fact into consideration, absolutely, there is no excess or variation. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that the calculation of both the authorities below is erroneous. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the orders impugned herein are set aside. __________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada Dated: 25.3.2011 Nn HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:136 OF 2011 25.3.2011