JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records insofar relates to order passed in C.A.No.102 of 2014, dated 23.12.2014 on the file of First Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore whereby, modifying the order passed by the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.No.3290/2013/Ki-3, dated 21.06.2014 and set aside the same.)

1. The matter is heard through “Video Conference”.

2. The owner of the confiscated lorry is the revision petitioner herein.

3. This criminal revision case is filed against the order passed by the first Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore made in C.A.No.101 of 2014, dated 23.12.2014 whereby, modified the order passed by the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore in his proceedings Na.Ka.3290/2013/ki-3, dated 21.06.2014 whereby, reduced the fine amount from Rs.11 lakhs to Rs.9 lakhs, on the lorry (confiscated vehicle).

4. The brief facts of the case is that,

4(i) the petitioner is owner of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-63-AX-6999 and same was entrusted to his driver with strict instructions to ply the lorry within, four corner of law. While so, on 15.09.2013, one Abraham, who is running modern rice mill in the name and style of Madha & Co. Pattukottai he engaged the appellant’s lorry for transporting 840 bags of open market rice each 50kg from Pattukottai to Kerala under cover of valid bill Nos.639, 640, 642 and 672, on its way, the said lorry was seized by the second respondent, even though the driver produced the records inspite of it, the second respondent seized lorry and goods.

4(ii) When the said trader/rice mill owner was engaged the lorry that too, without knowledge of the petitioner, the driver was accepted to transport the said rice bags and he did not obtained any prior permission from the lorry owner and also the driver suo-moto accepted for hire. The respondent-police registered a case against the said lorry and petitioner/the lorry owner and others under Clause 6(4) of the TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w. Section 7(1) (a) (ii) of E.C. Act, 1955, on the ground that seized stock of rice are PDS rice.

5. Records reveals that after seizure of the lorry and goods, the second respondent obtained lab test report from the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation as if, the seized rice are PDS rice, since the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation officials always without analysing the rice, they used to issue quality certificate as if, seized rice are PDS rice, since the said officials always obeyed the orders of the Civil Supplies CID Police.

6. After knowing the above said facts, the rice owner made an application before the first respondent and the second respondent to send rice samples which are seized from petitioner’s lorry to Central Government Lab viz., King Institute, Guindy, Chennai, but they have not come forward to send the samples King Institute, hence, he approached this Court and filed writ petition in W.P.No.27313 of 2013, praying for to send samples to King Institute for analyse. This Hon’ble Court was pleased passed orders whereby directing the respondents to send rice samples to the King Institute, accordingly, the respondents sent rice samples and submitted report before this Court as if, the seized rice are “fit for Trade/Commercial sale“ and indicated it is not possible for the analyse to say as to whether, it was PDS rice.

7. Records reveals that since ten members of the police team seized lorry and arrested the drivers, but he sent report that the drivers ran away and no bills were available in the lorry.

8. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent.

9. The quantity of seized bags are 840 bags of rice each of 50 crores and it was alleged to be PDS rice. In the connected writ petition filed by the very same rice owner in W.P.No.27313/2013, with regard to the nature of the rice King Institute, Guind