IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that proper procedural adherence under the Essential Commodities Act is essential for confiscation, and failure to comply with licensing conditions justifies such actions.

ORDER :

1. Assailing the judgment dated 07.04.2009 in Crl. Appeal No. 72 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge at Kurnool, confirming the order dated 21.12.2007 in Rc.DSO/CS1-EC-No. 7 of 2007 passed by the learned Collector & District Magistrate at Kurnool, but the quantum of confiscation of seized stock is reduced from 100% to 20%, the petitioner filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w. 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. The revision case was admitted on 29.07.2009.

3. The shorn of necessary facts are that:

(i) On 14.02.2007 at about 04.00 p.m. an inspection team lead by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Kurnool has inspected M/s. Vasundara Godown situated at Pedapadu Village of Kallur Mandal and found that M/s. Sai Krupa Traders, Kurnool has been doing clandestine business of pulses by storing 247 quintals of red gram without obtaining license, thereby, contravening the conditions of license issued under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution Order 1982 and instructions vide Memo No. 1519/CS1(1)/2006 dated 18.12.2006 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh Consumer Affairs Food & Civil Supplies (C.S.) Department.

(ii) In view of the contravention, the Assistant Supply Officer, Kurnool seized the above-said stock of M/s. Sai Krupa Traders, Kurnool under the cover of Panchanama.

4. The case has been taken on file under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to “E.C. Act”) by the learned Collector & District Magistrate at Kurnool. After considering the material available on record, on 21.12.2007, the learned Collector passed order, vide Rc.DSO/CS1-EC-No. 07 of 2007, concluded that petitioner has stored the stock without having valid license, violating the conditions of license issued by the Government, thereby, confiscating the entire seized stock of the petitioner.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, vide Crl. Appeal No. 72 of 2008, before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge at Kurnool and the same was partly allowed, vide judgment dated 07.04.2009, confirming the order of the learned District Collector, but the quantum of confiscation is reduced from 100% to 20% of the seized stock.

6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner.

7. Heard Smt. P. Madhavi, learned legal aid counsel appointed for the petitioner and Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court?”

9. Sri Smt. P. Madhavi, learned legal aid counsel appointed for the petitioner submits that the learned District Collector has not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 6 A & 6B of E.C. Act, which resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the learned District Collector did not take into consideration that all the restrictions for trade in pulses were removed in the year 2002 and obtaining of license does not arise; that the application for renewal of license was kept pending by the officials, if the same is not renewed with one month, deemed that the license is renewed, but the same is not considered by the learned District Collector; that the seized stock was purchased from the farmers with valid receipts and payment of VAT by obtaining registration numbers and the same is not smuggled goods; that first Appellate Court failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective, erroneously confiscated 20% of the seized stock by confirming the order of the District Collector and the same is liable to be set aside.

10. Against the same, Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent submits that the petitioner has been car