APHC010456672009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 96/2009 Between: Ch.hari Prasad ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V S R MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order: The revision was preferred under Sections 397 and 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) against the judgment in Crl.A.No.151 of 2006, dated 10.07.2007, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore, confirming the order dated 16.09.2006 vide R.C.B2/670/2005 of the learned Joint Collector, confiscating 100% of the stock seized by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Podalakur. 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.96 of 2009 Dated 11.02.2025 2. Sri V.S.R. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterated the grounds of revision and requested indulgence of this Court, as the revisionist was found with irregularities for the first time and a lenient view may be taken, as the revision was filed in the year 2009 and nearly 14 years have lapsed. 3. Per Contra, Mr. Sandeep, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently argued the revision petition and requested its dismissal, stating that no procedure was violated and there was no miscarriage of justice. 4. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by both the Counsel. I have perused the record. 5. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.151 of 2006, dated 10.07.2007, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore, is correct, legal and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief? 6. On 25.11.2005, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Podalakur, surprised the premises of the revisionist, who was a Fair Price Shop Dealer of Marupuru and found certain irregularities. He seized 2298 KGs. of SGRY rice and 190 liters of PDS Kerosene Oil. The seizure was made on the ground that the PDS rice was being transported from FPS No. 1, belonging to the revisionist, in the presence of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Podalakur, and the Panchayat Secretary, Marupuru. At the time of inspection, certain variations were found in the accounts maintained for PDS essential commodities. 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.96 of 2009 Dated 11.02.2025 7. After conducting a thorough enquiry, the learned Joint Collector was not convinced with the version of the revisionist and ordered the confiscation of 100% of the seized stock and further ordered the recovery of the value of 4452 KGs. of SGRY rice, which was found to be in shortage at the time of inspection. 8. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore, having not convinced with the grounds in appeal of the revisionist, dismissed the appeal. 9. Indeed, the explanation submitted by the revisionist pursuant to the notice issued under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is found not convincing. The revisionist, being a responsible fair price shop dealer, ought to have maintained proper accounts and ground balance, and the balance maintained in the accounts ought to have tallied properly inasmuch as he was entrusted with the responsibility of distributing Essential Commodities to the poor people and lower strata of the society. 10. The revisionist, being a responsible Fair Price Shop dealer, should have presented himself before the inspection team upon receiving information about the inspection by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Podalakur. The learned Joint Collector and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore, have rightly appreciated the contentions of the revisionist and appropriately dealt with the matter and passed orders. There was no material irregularity in the confiscation. 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.96 of 2009 Dated 11.02.2025 11. However, having regard to the fact that the revision was filed in the year 2009, the inspection took place nearly 20 years ago and there were neither prior nor subsequent adverse antecedents against the revisionist that he had indulged in similar irregularities, imposition of 100% confiscation of the seized stock Ex facie seems excessive and not appropriate to the gravity of the irregularities charged. Confiscation of 50% of the seized stock and recovery of the value of 50% of the 4452 KGs. of SGRY rice would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, to the extent of confiscation, this revision should be considered. 12. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed, setting aside the confirming order of total confiscation, but modifying the confiscation of 100% of the seized stock to 50% of the seized stock and ordering the recovery of the value of 50% of 4452 KGs. of SGRY rice. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 11.02.2025 PNS