J HARINADHA BABU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugning the order of the 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955(for short, 'the Act') in Crl.A.No.217 of 2014 dated 27.10.2014 which is passed by the District Sessions Judge, Guntur, in modification of the order of the District Collector, Guntur in Proceeding No.140/2014-S7 dated 07.07.2014 of the 6-A of the Act, this revision is maintained by the petitioner.

(2.) The grounds of the revision vis-à-vis oral submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner are that the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to law and improper and having found that the stocks were not properly weighed, ought not to have passed confiscation order and should have seen the variation found beyond the permissible limit is very less and should have released the entire stock without any confiscation and also erred in calculating the value of the confiscated stock at Rs.3,32,619/- and having found out of 4 items, there is variation regarding to stock of rice only and thereby no confiscation of any part of excess stock should have been ordered thereby sought for setting aside the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) Whereas, it is the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent that amount ordered for confiscation as value of stock for the variation found in clandestine dealing by the revision petitioner/dealer no way requires interference but for cross-revision to impugn and thereby sought for dismissal of the revision.