Judgment This revision is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Dharmapuri Division confirming the order of the Collector of Dharmapuri confiscating 2,655 litres of kerosene to Government under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. The facts are: 2. On 16th June, 1975, the Inspector of Food Cell, Hosur, accompanied by Revenue Officials, inspected the shop of the revision petitioner who is a licensed kerosene dealer at 202, Gandhi Road, Krishnagiri. At the time of the inspection, the revision petitioner was not present. The entries in the stock register showed an opening balance of 3,040 litres of kerosene as on 15th June, 1975, and it also showed a sale of 240 litres of kerosene on the same date, but no sale were shown on 16th June, 1975. There should have been a stock of 2,800 litres of kerosene. But what was actually found on inspection was 2,655 litres of kerosene and there was a shortage of 145 litres of kerosene. A notice was issued to the revision petitioner by the Collector calling on him to show cause against the confiscation of the entire stock of 2,655 litres of kerosene. The defence was that Ramamurthy, the son of the petitioner, who was present at the shop had just then returned from Tirupati and therefore was feeling tired and could not explain and that the failure to write the accounts was not wilful. This explanation did not find favour with the Collector who confiscated the entire stock. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge who confirmed the order of confiscation. 3. The learned Counsel now appearing for the revision petitioner pointed out that there has been no mahazar for the seizure of the kerosene. He invited my attention to the provisions of sections 102 and 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and contended that failure to comply with those requirements makes the seizure illegal and vitiates the entire proceedings. My attention was invited to Sesuraj and others, In re., a decision rendered by me. It should be noted that Sesuraj and others, In re.,1 should not be understood as laying down a proposition that any irregularity in following the procedure under sections 102 and 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiates the entire proceedings. My attention was invited to Sesuraj and others, In re., a decision rendered by me. It should be noted that Sesuraj and others, In re.,1 should not be understood as laying down a proposition that any irregularity in following the procedure under sections 102 and 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiates the entire proceedings. It should also be noted that the revision in that case was allowed not because the proceedings are vitiated, but on the ground that neither the order of the Collector nor the judgment of the Sessions Judge says as to what offence the revision petitioners have committed. But, in this case the seizure of the kerosene under a search list is not disputed. I find from the search list that the signature of Ramamurthy, the son of the revision petitioner, has been obtained. It has been proved in this case that kerosene was seized from the revision petitioner's shop. It is also seen that there has been a shortage of 145 litres of kerosene. It is therefore clear that there has been a violation of clauses 5 (3) and 18 of the Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973. 4. It is next contended by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that in any event the confiscation of the entire stock will cause great hardship to the revision petitioner and that after all he has not written the accounts for only one day and there was shortage of only 145 litres. 5. In B. Seetharamayya v. District Revenue Officer, Chittoor a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held: “Even though section 6-A authorises confiscation of seized goods, it does not say that the entire seized quantity should be directed to be confiscated. It is only an enabling provision and says that the Collector may order confiscation of the essential commodity so seized. So, it is left to the discretion of the District Revenue Officer and the appellate Authority to decide whether the entire seized stock should be confiscated or only a portion of it. That however, is a judicial discretion and must be exercised judicially, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the gravity of the matter and other relevant and pertinent factors.” We may now point out that the circumstances under which the confiscation was made. The petitioner is a licenced dealer in kerosene. That however, is a judicial discretion and must be exercised judicially, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the gravity of the matter and other relevant and pertinent factors.” We may now point out that the circumstances under which the confiscation was made. The petitioner is a licenced dealer in kerosene. On the date of inspection, there should have been a stock of 2,800 litres of kerosene, but instead only 2,655 litres of kerosene were found. There was a shortage of only 145 litres of kerosene. The son of the revision petitioner was alone in the shop and was unable to explain the shortage. The inspection was made between 11-00 a.m., and 11-30 a.m., and the explanation of the revision petitioner was that he was undergoing treatment at Bangalore and the mistake was a bona fide one. The learned Collector has also stated that the petitioner has admitted the “incorrect maintenance of accounts.” It is therefore a case of not maintaining the accounts properly. I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the entire stock of 2,655 litres of kerosene should be confiscated. Having regard to the features of the case, I am of the opinion that confiscation of half of the seized stock would be adequate punishment for the revision petitioner. While confirming the order of confiscation, I reduce the quantum of confiscation to half seized stock, i.e., 1,327$ litres of kerosene. To this extent, the criminal revision is allowed and in other respects, the revision is dismissed. The revision petitioner will be entitled to the value of half the sale proceeds of the stock sold.