Order.- This revision by one Kaliaperumal is against the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Tiruchirapalli Division confiscating 1|4th value of the 37 bags of rice. 2. The facts leading to this revision are: On 28th August, 1974 at about 10-00 a.m., the District Revenue Officer and the District Supply Officer intercepted three bullock-carts loaded with rice coming from Mannachanallur to Tiruchirapalli town. On a perusal of the bills, it was found that about 37 bags of rice were sold by one wholesaler at Mannachanallur to the revision petitioner who is another licensed wholesaler at Tiruchirapalli. A show-cause notice was issued by the Collector to the two dealers to whom the rice belonged and in the view of the Collector, the revision petitioner has contravened clauses 2(h) and 2 (9) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice Dealers (Licensing Regulation and Disposal of Stocks) Order, 1968 and he ordered confiscation of the entire 37 bags of rice. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, thought that the appellant (revision petitioner herein) has committed only a ‘technical offence’ and the confiscation of 37 bags of rice is very severe and therefore restricted the confiscation to 1|4th of the 37 bags of rice and ordered that the value of the remaining 3|4th of the 37 bags of rice be refunded to the revision-petitioner. The revision-petitioner is aggrieved and has filed this revision. In my view, the revision has to be allowed. My reasons are as follows: Clause 2(9) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Licensing Regulation and Disposal of Stocks) Order, 1968 reads thus: “A wholesaler shall not sell in the area specified in the licence held by him paddy of rice to any other wholesaler and a retailer shall not sell in the area specified in the licence held by him paddy or rice to any person other than consumers unless specifically authorised in this behalf by the licensing authority.” Clause 2(h) gives the definition in respect of the term “wholesaler” as one who sells paddy or rice only to retailers or bulk consumers. According to the learned Sessions Judge, though clause 2(9) does not say anything about the purchase from a wholesaler dealer, the revision petitioner who is a purchaser will nevertheless be liable, because he has also contributed to the offence. Plainly, I am unable to understand the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge. According to the learned Sessions Judge, though clause 2(9) does not say anything about the purchase from a wholesaler dealer, the revision petitioner who is a purchaser will nevertheless be liable, because he has also contributed to the offence. Plainly, I am unable to understand the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge. Further, he points out that in a case of corruption, the giver and the receiver of the bribe are liable and therefore on that analogy also, the revision petitioner will be liable. The provision under which the revision petitioner was charged was clause 2(9) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice Dealers (Licensing Regulation and Disposal of Stocks) Order, 1968 which says that a wholesaler shall not sell in the area specified in the licence paddy or rice to another wholesaler. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that instead of proceeding against the wholesaler who sold the rice to him, the Collector has proceeded against the revision petitioner who has only purchased. As the words in clause 2(9) are very plain prohibiting only the sale of rice, the revision petitioner who has purchased rice from a wholesaler, in my view, cannot be held liable. For that reason, the revision has to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The order of confiscation by the Courts below is set aside. The revision petitioner will be entitled to refund of the value of the goods confiscated.