HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Crl.R.C.No. 2389 of 2010 AND Crl.R.C.No. 2390 of 2010 AND Crl.R.C.No. 2401 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These three revision petitions arise out of confiscation proceedings initiated by the District Collector, Kurnool, under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (in short, the Act). All the revision petitioners are traders at Kurnool and at Nandyal. There was raid in each case on every godown where the revision petitioners stocked redgram and huge quantities of redgram stocks were seized by the authorities. In Crl.R.C. No. 2389 of 2010, stocks to the extent of 157.50 quintals belonging to the 1st revision petitioner, 303.50 quintals belonging to the 2nd petitioner and 945 quintals belonging to the 3rd petitioner were seized. In Crl.R.C.No. 2390 of 2010, redgram stock to the extent of 162.50 quintals belonging to the revision petitioner was seized. In Crl.R.C.No. 2401 of 2010, redgram stock to the extent of 397 quintals belonging to the revision petitioner was seized. 2. It is alleged that the revision petitioners contravened Clause 18(c) and Clause 3(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Pulses (licencing, Storage and Regulation) Order 2007 in as much as there were three violations namely, that the traders were not holding valid lincence for trade or storage of the pulses, that the traders were storing the pulses in godowns which were not authorized by the licencing authority and that the traders did not submit C-Form returns periodically to the licencing authority. After issuing show cause notice calling for explanation of the traders and after production of necessary documents by the traders, the Collector found that the traders’ respective licences were extended covering the period of raid and that the traders submitted applications to the licencing authority for permission to store the pulses in the respective godowns from where they were seized by the authorities. But, there was no valid explanation for non-submission of C-Form returns periodically by the traders to the licencing authority. The Collector noticed that when the traders applied for permission to store in new godowns and when it is not refused within two weeks of the said applications as per rules, it is deemed that the said permission is granted by the licencing authority. In these cases, there were no rejection of such permissions muchless granting of permissions explicitly. Therefore, it is deemed that the traders were authorised to store the pulses in the godowns from where they were seized by the authorities. 3. The Collector, for violation by way of non-submission of C-Form returns periodically, ordered confiscation of 100% of the seized stocks. On appeals by the traders, the Sessions Judge, Kurnool, reduced confiscation from 100% of the seized stocks to 50% of the seized stocks. Aggrieved by the said appellate orders of the Sessions Judge, Kurnool, the revision petitioners approached this court with these revision petitions. 4. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the Collector failed to follow the requirement of Sec. 6-B of the Act in as much as the Collector failed to give show cause notice setting out the grounds for confiscation. Item No.4 of the respective orders of Collector reads that a notice was issued to the counsel appearing for the traders before passing the impugned order. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the said notice was issued by the Collector not in accordance with Sec. 6-B of the Act, but as notice of hearing of the petitions filed by the advocates for releasing the stocks seized by the authorities. No doubt, prior to giving the said notice, the respective advocates of the traders filed petitions before the Collector for release of stocks on the ground that the traders have not violated any of the Control Orders. But, the respective notices issued, which were referred as item No.4 in the Collector’s order, cannot be construed as notices to hear the advocates for disposal of the petitions for release of stocks. The notice reads as follows: “After perusal of the contents of the petition filed and the material available form this office records, it is hereby decided to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the traders and therefore, he is hereby instructed to attend before the District Collector, Kurnool by 4.00 pm. On 06.09.2008 in his chamber along with relevant evidence if any, failing which it will be construed that there is no more explanation with him and order will be passed on the material available on record.” 5. The above is portion of one of the notices issued to the traders. It reads that in case of failure to attend on the specified date and specified time, it will be construed that there is no more explanation with him and order will be passed on the material available on record. The fact that the Collector called for explanation of the trader indicting that it was a notice issued to the trader in compliance of Section 6-B of the Act and not a notice of hearing of the petition filed by the traders for release of their respective stocks seized by the authorities. In any event, the Collector gave reasonable opportunity to the traders by way of giving notices and receiving documents like renewed licences and applications for permission for storage of stocks at new godowns etc., 6. It is then contended by the petitioners’ counsel that for non- submission of periodical C-form returns, no confiscation should be ordered and that only departmental action has to be taken. Under the Act, there is no other departmental action to be taken against a dealer or a trader except by way of ordering confiscation of the seized stocks or/and by way of prosecution of the person, who contravened the control orders in a criminal court. It is now well settled that for failure of submission of C-Form returns, a trader cannot be prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, the only course left to the Collector is to take proceedings under Section 6A of the Act by initiating proceedings for confiscation of the seized stocks. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that confiscation of 50% of the seized stocks for non-submission of periodical C-Form returns is excessive and that the percentage of confiscation may be reduced. Since major grounds of failure to hold licence and storing pulses in unauthorized godowns, were found to be unfounded, this court is of the opinion that confiscation of 50% of the seized stock for failure of submission of periodical C-Form returns, is on higher side. In the circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that confiscation of 25% of the respective seized stocks would meet the ends of justice for violation of Control Order relating to submission of periodical C-Form returns to the licencing authority. 7. In the result, all the three revision petitions are partly allowed altering quantum of confiscated stocks from 50% to 25% of the seized stocks. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt. 28.1.2011. Mjl/*