The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition came to be filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking clarification of the judgment of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.535 of 2014, dated 24.04.2015. Hence the same is posted under the caption ‘for being mentioned’.

The facts which lead to filing of the present petition are as under:

By an order dated 24.04.2015, this Court, while disposing of Crl.R.C.No.535 of 2015 modified the order of confiscation from 16% to 8%. It was a case where the petitioners herein were owners of a wholesale kirana shop, which was being run in the name and style of M/s.S.S.Stores, Turakabadi Veedhi, Narsipatnam. When the authorities inspected the shop, they found certain variations in the ground stock with the entries made in the Register. Hence the entire stock was seized and proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act were initiated. After calling for an explanation and after conducting enquiry, the District Collector rejected the defence put forth by the petitioners and accordingly ordered confiscation to an extent of 33% of the seized stock. The said order was questioned by way of filing Crl.A.No.20 of 2014 before the Principal Sessions Court, Visakhapatnam. By its judgment dated 16.02.2015, the said appeal was allowed in part by reducing the extent of confiscation of stock from 33% to 16%. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Crl.R.C.No.535 of 2015. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned Public Prosecutor for the State, this Court, reduced the confiscation from 16% to 8%. The reason for reducing the confiscation was that some of the stock namely rice, R.G.Dal, bengalgram dal, blackgram dal, blackgram dal (piece) was within permissible limits. Since there was variation insofar as other stocks are concerned, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no variation at all and that the confiscation itself is illegal was rejected. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the confiscation of seized stock was reduced from 16% to 8%.

The said order was passed in the month of April, 2015. Thereafter, on 22.06.2015, the petitioners herein made a representation to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, requesting him to implement the order dated 24.04.2015. In the said representation, it was urged that confiscation was reduced from 16% to 8%, insofar as stock which are not within the permissible limits and not in respect of the entire stock seized. However, the District Collector by his order dated 21.06.2015, directed the petitioners herein to deposit an amount of Rs.94,834/- to the Government account, being the value of 8% of the confiscated stock. In view of the above order, the present application came to be filed seeking clarification of the order dated 24.04.2015, on the ground that the confiscation of the stock which was reduced from 16% to 8% relates to stock which is not within permissible limit and not with regard to the entire seized stock.

The preliminary objection raised is with regard to the maintainability of this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking clarification of the order.

Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submits that the present application is maintainable since the petitioners are seeking only clarification of the order and not review of the order. In support of his contention, he placed on record the following judgments:

(1) Relying upon the judgment in Vijaya Sri Vs. State of A.P. and another [2007 (1) ALD (Crl.) 622 (AP)], learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is a difference between recall and review and as the present application is only to clarify the order, the same is permissible under law. The judgment referred to above relates to a case where the petitioner therein, who is A7 in Crime No.32 of 2004, filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings against her. As there was no represen