<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><error>LexiJudis failed to generate accurate subject tags for this case involving an Essential Commodities Act stock shortage and confiscation dispute.</error>
confiscation of seized stock reduced from 25% to 10%.
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.273 of 2011
ORDER:
1 The Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Guntur along with his staff surprised the Rice Mill of the petitioner situated at Palakaluru village on 16.08.2010 and after inspection certain irregularities were detected. In the light of the said variations and irregularities the vigilance officials seized the entire stock available at the business premises of the petitioner i.e. 833.72 quintals of paddy and 411.50 quintals of rice and 39 quintals of broken rice and reported the matter to the District Collector, Guntur who in turn initiated proceedings under section 6 A of the Essential Commodities Act. After issuance of notice and holding an enquiry, the District Collector came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to maintain the records properly which leads to 863.28 quintals shortage in paddy and 52.50 quintals shortage in rice and finally ordered confiscation of 25% of seized stock to the State while releasing the remaining 75% of seized stock to the petitioner. The petitioner questioned the said order dated 30.10.2010 passed by the District Collector, Guntur by filing Criminal Appeal No.495 of 2010 and the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur by his judgment dated 19.01.2011 while allowing the said appeal in part, and set aside the confiscation order passed by the Collector in relation to the paddy and broken rice, however, confirmed the confiscation order relating to rice and finally directed the authorities to repay the value of 25% of confiscated stock of paddy and broken rice to the petitioner. Not satisfied with the said finding given by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner preferred the present revision.
2 Heard the counsel for the petitioner.
3 As seen from the judgment impugned in this revision, this court is of the considered view that the authorities below i.e. the Joint Collector as well as the Sessions Judge have rightly found the petitioner guilty of
the variations in stock and hence the said findings given by the authorities need no interference. However, the said confiscation of 25% as ordered by the authorities below is reduced to 10%.
4 With the above modification, this revision is disposed of.
-------------- 09.03.2011
Kvsn
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the confiscation of seized stock ordered by the District Collector under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act should be reduced.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PETITIONER (Owner of Rice Mill at Palakaluru village)
STATE REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR & OTHERS
GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
