ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners, who are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2006, on the file of Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, challenging the judgment, dated 01.04.2009, where under the learned Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, dismissed the same confirming the order passed by the learned Joint Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Ananthapuramu in Rc.No.K3/4900/1999, dated 27.02.2006.

2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Court below for the sake of the convenience.

3. The proceedings in Rc.No.K3/4900/1999, dated 27.02.2006, on the file of Joint Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Ananthapuramu, arose out of the report submitted by the Inspector of Police, VCCS F/S, Tirupati, under Section 6- A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

4. The case of the complainant before the Court below is that the Inspector of Police, VCCS F/S, Tirupati, along with his staff inspected M/s. Sree Lakshmi Narasimha Rice & Oil Mill, Bukkapatnam, on 16.06.1999 at 11-30 A.M. and found that the management of the mill is indulging in clandestine business without maintaining true and correct account and keeping huge stocks in the mill premises. Hence, they seized ground balance of the stocks under a panchanama for contravention of Clause-3 of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 r/w Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and submitted report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. Then, the Joint Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Ananthapuramu i.e., the Court below after giving opportunity of hearing to the other side ordered for confiscation of 30% of the seized stocks.

5. The charges that are framed by the Joint Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Ananthapuramu, are as follows:

Charge No.1:- The respondent failed to produce licence to do the business in food grains and failed to produce any record to run the mill and to do business in food grains, as such, contravened Clause-3 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 and condition No.3 of the said order.

Charge No.2:- The respondent kept huge stocks in the mill premises without valid documents and thereby contravened Clause-11 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 and further Clause-16(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984.

6. The Joint Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Ananthapuramu, issued a show cause notice to the respondent and the respondent participated in the enquiry and raised a contention that he is running a non-trading mill and application of Clause-3 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 is not applicable and Nagendra is not the Managing Partner and he is only a construction worker. Sri P. Rajagopalaiah is the claim petitioner and he is Managing Partner of the mill and the seized stocks belong to farmers. The Managing Partner maintained farmers account in Form-A Register and the vigilance officials did not look into the same purposefully.

7. The learned Joint Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Ananthapuram, negativing the contention of the respondent, observed that Clause-10 of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 stipulates that licensed rice miller should not undertake custom milling of paddy without permission of the Collector and Form-A Register shows that about 45 bags (31.50 quintals of paddy) was hulled from 24.05.1999 to 30.05.1999 and from 01.06.1999 to 15.06.1999, 239 bags of paddy was hulled (167.9 quintals) without obtaining the permission from the Collector or an Officer authorised by him as required under Clause-10 of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. Further 155 bags (108.50 quintals) of paddy were hulled during June, 1999 and 55 ba