Proceedings held not vitiated.

This revision is directed against the order of The Appellate Authority (Sessions Judge), Madurai, confirming the order of the Additional Collector, Madurai, confiscating 40 quintals of paddy.

2. On 9th October, 1978, the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies, C. I. D., Madurai, inspected Sri Arumugha Vilas Rice Mill, Madurai, of which the first revision petitioner is the proprietor. It was found during inspection that there was unaccounted raw paddy of about 180 bags weighing 57 kgs, each. They were seized and a special report was submitted to the Collector recommending confiscation. The Additional Collector issued a show cause notice under section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act to the first revision petitioner and also to the second revision petitioner, who is the Accountant, who are alleged to have violated the provisions of clauses 14(2) and 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974 punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The revision petitioners contended that 180 bags of raw paddy were purchased at Chidambaram and were brought on the moraing on 9th October, 1970 and entries were not made in the books as it was a Sunday. This defence did not find favour with the Additional Collector, who fund that there has been a violation of clauses 14(2) and 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974 and passed an order confiscating forty quintals of paddy out of the seized stock. In appeal the order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The revision petitioners are aggrieved and have filed this revision.

3. The inspection of the premises is not disputed, nor the seizure of the paddy bags, It is pointed out by the Appellate Authority that verification of entries in the register shows that transactions pertaining to all the days in the month inclusive of Sundays have been duly recorded. It is also seen that on 8th October, 1978 on which day 180 bags of paddy were said to have been received from Chidambaram, there have been other transactions of sale of paddy, which have been duly entered in the books, but not this transaction. Therefore, the Explanation that they failed to make entries as it was a Sunday, is not acceptable Further, the inspection was only on 9th October, 1978. There was ample time to make the entry. Rightly the explanation of the revision petitioners was not accepted by both the authorities and sitting in revision. I do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of the authorities below that there has been a violation of the provisions of the Order mentioned earlier.

4. But, it is contended that the inspector of Police his not stated in his report that “he had reason to believe that an offence had been or was being committed or was likely to be committed” and therefore, the seizure was illegal and the confiscation’ has to be set aside. In support, the counsel for appellant relied on M. Sivaraman, In re1 a ruling of this Court. That was a case where a hulling agent of the Civil Supplies Corporation hulled 12 bags of rice without getting the previous permission of the Corporation for hulling his private stock in the mill in accordance with Condition 14 of his licence. He transported 12 bags of rice to another wholesale dealer for the purpose of sale, in contravention of the license granted to him. The Inspector of Police stopped the double bullock-cart and cheeked the bags which were sought to be transported by the cart. He found 12 bags of rice in the cart and the cartman produced a bill, but there was no seal of the checkpost on the hill and therefore, the 12 bags of rice were seized, and the premises of the petitioner’s mill was also searched by the Inspector. Suryamurthi, J., observed that the Inspector has not stated in his report that he I ad “reason to believe” that the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act or rules framed thereunder had been contravened or sought to be contravened at the time he stopped the