DILIP KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.223 of 2000 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge dated 13.4.2001 against the order of the Chief Rationing Officer in confirming the confiscation of 30% of the value of the seized stock of rice but setting aside the confiscation of 30% of the seized stocks relating to Basmathi and broken rice in favour of the Government.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Inspector of Police Vigilance Cell surprised M/s Adarsh Rice Depot located at 10.1.622 Entrenchment Road, East Secunderabad on 21.5.1998 at 2 p.m., and at the time of inspection one D. Dileep Kumar, Proprietor of the said shop was conducting the business and on request he produced the relevant records and the licence for verification. The Vigilance staff after verification found that there was variation with regard to essential commodities detailed in the order with the book balance as against the ground balance. The Vigilance Inspector in the presence of mediators, after conducting physical verification and in view of improper maintenance of conducting business in clandestine way, seized the entire stock, arrested the said Dileep Kumar, registered a case and issued FIR. The seized stocks were produced before the Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad and a show- cause notice was issued to the revision petitioner and after hearing, the Chief Rationing Officer ordered confiscation of 30% of the value of the seized stock in favour of the Government. Aggrieved against the order of the Chief Rationing Officer, the revision petitioner filed an appeal before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge in Crl. A. No.223 of 2000 and the learned Sessions Judge after hearing partly allowed the appeal setting aside the confiscation of 30% of the seized stocks relating to Basmathi rice and broken rice, but confirmed the confiscation of 30% of the value of the seized stock relating to rice in favour of the Government.

(3.) Aggrieved against the judgment in Crl. A No.223 of 2000 the revision petitioner filed the revision contending that the order of the learned Sessions Judge in confiscating 30% of the value of the seized stocks is illegal and opposed to law. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have seen that there was no violation of provisions of the Essential Commodities Act or Control Orders and there was no contravention of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The learned Judge ought to have seen that the variation in the stocks may be violation of licence conditions but they would not attract the penal provisions for confiscation of the stocks.