Revision against an order of 50% confiscation of stock. Court held petitioner offered no proper explanation for stock variation. While finding no merit in the appeal, court exercised further lenience and reduced confiscation to 25%.
Confiscation of seized stock is reduced from 50% to 25%.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.208 of 2011 ORDER:
Petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Sri Venkata Satyanarayana General Stores, Akividu. On credible information, respondents herein inspected the business premises of the petitioner on 07.01.2009 and found him doing clandestine business by not maintaining the records and accounts properly resulting in occurrence of variation of (-) 20.87 quintals in the ground stock, which is beyond permissible limits. As there is a variation in stocks and there was no proper explanation, the ground stock worth Rs.2,19,875/- was seized and the matter was reported to the Joint Collector for initiation of necessary proceedings. Pursuant to the said reference, the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) has been initiated and the petitioner was served with a notice calling for his explanation. The Joint Collector, Eluru, after holding an enquiry, rejected the contentions put forth by the petitioner, and found that the petitioner contravened the provisions of Clause 18(2) of the A{SCD (LSR & R) Order, 2008, condition 3 of the licence issued under the above order read with Section 6-A of the Act and accordingly by order, dated 18.09.2009, ordered confiscation of 100% of the value of the seized stock. The said order, dated 18.09.2009, was questioned by filing an appeal in E.C.C.M.A.No.46 of 2009 under Section 6-C of the Act. By judgment, dated 21.10.2010, the learned Principal District Judge, Eluru, while holding that the finding arrived at by
the Collector was correct, however, reduced the confiscation from 100% to 50% and directed the respondents to release 50% of the seized stock and if it is sold or not available the value thereof be refunded to the appellant. The said judgment is challenged in this revision.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order under revision is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.
4. Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the relevant material available on record, this Court is of the view that for the variation in the stock, the petitioner could not offer proper explanation. In fact, the authorities below not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner for the variation in the stock, ordered confiscation. I see no merits in this revision. However, as the Court below has taken a lenient view and reduced the confiscation to 50%, this Court is of the view that further lenience should be shown and, accordingly, the confiscation is reduced to 25%.
5. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.
_______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J
18th February, 2011.
Tsy
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the confiscation of seized stock under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 should be modified.
Whether further lenience can be shown by the revision court reducing the confiscation percentage.
Whether the revision court has the power to modify the quantum of confiscation below the appellate court's order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s Sri Venkata Satyanarayana General Stores
The State of Andhra Pradesh
GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
