O R D E R:

1. This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the revision petitioner, challenging the judgment, dated 27.02.2013, passed in Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2012 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder the order dated 30.10.2012, passed by the District Collector, Karimnagar, in Case No.G3/1544/2012 directing 100% confiscation of the value of the seized PDS Rice and 25% of the paddy in favour of Government under section 6-A of E.C.Act, 1955 was confirmed, but modified the order of 25% of the seized paddy stock to that of 10% of the seized paddy stock in favour of the Government and rest of the seized paddy stock is ordered to be released forthwith.

2. Succinctly, the facts that germane for filing the present criminal revision case are that the petitioner herein is the proprietor of M/s.Lalitha Industries, M.R.M.Molangura village, Shankarapatnam Mandal. On 03.08.2012 upon credible information that the petitioner was indulging in clandestine business by not maintaining the registers and accounts properly, the Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam Mandal along with Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Gangadhara, Food Inspector, Jagtial and Mandal Revenue Inspector-II, Shankarapatnam Mandal visited the premises of M/s Lalitha Industries, MRM and on physical verification of the available stock on the ground with reference to ‘B’ Register in the presence of panchas and Sri Namani Ramesh, husband of the petitioner, it was found that there was variation of 2.22 quintals of paddy. On enquiry about the overwriting and tampering the figures using the ink remover, he said that the figures were corrected, but he did not give any reply in respect of the variation. Therefore the Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam seized the available stock worth Rs.7,26,741/- along with ‘B’ Register and food grains license, way bills and electricity bills and receipts under the cover of panchanama and booked a case under Section 6-A of the E.C.Act. Therefore, a notice as required under Section 6-B of the E.C.Act, 1955 was issued and served on the petitioner with a direction to submit her written explanation.

3. The primary authority i.e. District Collector after hearing both sides, directed confiscation of the value of 100% of the value of the seized PDS rice and 25% of the paddy in favour of the Government under Section 6-A of E.C.Act, 1955.

4. In appeal, the order of the District Collector was partly allowed to the extent of confiscation of 100% value of the seized PDS rice, but the confiscation of 25% of the seized paddy stock is modified to that of 10% of the seized paddy stock in favour of the Government and the rest of the seized paddy stock is ordered to be released forthwith.

5. Heard Mr.A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Mr.Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the alleged report of the Assistant Manager, A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. was not served on the petitioner. Further the said officer has no technical knowledge to identify the rice pertaining to PDS rice. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner is carrying on business in PDS Rice and therefore, the allegation that the petitioner is carrying on business in PDS rice is not based on any material. Therefore, the confiscation of 100% of PDS rice is illegal, arbitrary. It is further submitted that in any rice mill, while carrying on business in food grains milling paddy for converting it to rice and delivering it to FCI and also to the open market, there will be variation. The confiscation of 10% of the stocks is highly excessive with reference to the offence alleged against the petitioner. Therefore, prayed to allow the criminal revision case.

7. Basing on the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that illegalities and wrong entries have been found in B-register and hence, seeks to dismiss the case.

8. In view of the submis