STATE Vs. K MARIMUTHU MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is by the State. It arises in the following circumstances: On 1. 3. 1982, between 9-30 and 12-30 hours, the inspector of Police (Enforcement) Civil Supplies, C. I. D. , Coimbatore, inspected the rice mundy belonging to the respondents who are resepctively father and son and who were licensed dealers in rice. He found a shortage of 14 bags of rice and excess of 84 bags of broken rice when he campared the stock with the accounts. No explanation appears to have been given at that time to the officer. So the officer proceeded to the seizure of the entire stock of 62 bags of rice and 84 bags of broken rice. When a notice under Sec. 6-B of the Essential Commodities act had been issued to show cause why the seized stock should not be confiscated, the respondents offered their explanation. The main explanation was that 70 bags of broken rice was purchased on 1. 3. 1982, from M/s. Sri shanmugananda Mills, Kozhinjampara and that the purchase bills regarding the 70 bags of broken rice was available with the accountant. The District Revenue officer, after hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that the bill produced was procured after the seizure in order to thwart the proceedings. However, taking a leninent view, he ordered confiscation of 50 per cent of the seized stock under Sec. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and ordered to release 50 per cent of the seized stock. On appeal, the Sessions Court of coimbatore, set aside the order of the Revenue Officer and ordered for return of the 50 per cent of the stock as well. Aggrieved by that order, the State has preferred this revision.

(2.) AS far as boiled rice is concerned, opening balance as per the stock register was 70 bags and the actual stock was 62 bags and therefore, there was a shortage of 14 bags of rice. AS pointed out rightly by the Sessions Court, there was no violation of any order in respect of the 62 bags of boiled rice and that rice ought not to have been seized and the order of the District Revenue Officer confiscating it is obviously wrong. That portion of the Sessions Court order setting aside the Revenue Officer�s orders regarding confiscation is a correct one. When there is violation by way of shortage the only way open to the State is to start a prosecution and not to seize for confiscate the remaining stock which is obviously in accordance with the stock register.