Judgment This revision has been filed to challenge an order of confiscation of 38 bags of sugar passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Civil Supplies, Madras-5, and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Madras, in Crl.A. No. 325 of 1980. 2. The facts which are briefly as under are not in controversy. The petitioner is a licensed dealer for sale of sugar in wholesale and its business premises is situate at Nos. 34 and 35, Kal Mandapam Road, Madras-13. On 17th December, 1979, at about 4 p.m., the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies, C.I.D., inspected the business premises of the petitioner and found that, as against the figure of 34 bags shown as stock in the stock register, there were actually 38 bags of sugar. The petitioner gave an explanation that a customer had purchased one bag of sugar on 13th December, 1979, itself and had failed to take delivery of the bag, that another customer had purchased three bags of sugar on the forenoon of 17th December, 1979, and that therefore, there was no excess stock of sugar. The further case of the petitioner was that even when the Inspector of Police was inspecting the premises, the two customers in question came to the shop and demanded delivery of the bags purchased by them, but the Inspector would not allow them to take delivery of the bags. 3. The explanation of the petitioner was not accepted and proceedings were initiated against it. The Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies rendered finding against the petitioner and ordered confiscation of all the 38 bags of sugar. The petitioner appealed to the appellate authority, but it was of no avail. Hence, the present revision. 4. Mr. N.T. Vanamamalai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, urges two contentions in favour of the petitioner’s case. The first is that the petitioner is under an obligation to prove the correctness of the stock only with reference to the opening stock entry and the closing stock entry and the stocks relating to the transactions that take place during the course of the day need not be entered then and there in the stock-register and in such circumstances, the petitioner ought not to have been proceeded against for contravention of the licence conditions, on the ground that as against the stock of 34 bags in the stock register, it had an actual stock of 38 bags. This contention cannot be accepted, because Class (b) and (c) of rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Sugar Dealers Licensing Order stipulate that the properties received on each day and the quantities delivered or otherwise removed on each day should also be made note of, so that whenever an inspection is made the stock verification can be done with reference to those particulars as well. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the stock verification can be done only at the beginning or at the end of the day any stock verification [done during the hours of business verification render returnable the stockist to prosecution for discrepant particulars. 5. The petitioner’s Counsel would then say that the sale of the four bags of sugar was not an after-thought and the Deputy Commissioner as well as the appellate Judge should have accepted the explanation offered by the petitioner. I am not persuaded to examine this contention on its merits because this is a factual one. Apart from that, even if the matter is considered afresh, it is highly, doubtful if customers would have paid money and purchased stocks of sugar and left the bags in the shop of the petitioner itself without clearing the stocks then and there. 6. The second contention of Mr. Vanamamalai is that in any event there was no justification or necessity for ordering confiscation of the entire 38 bags of sugar found in the business premises. There appears to be substance in this contention. Though it is open to the authority exercising powers under the Act to order confiscation of the entire quality, the Supreme Court has pointed out in State of Karnataka v. K.B. Valvakar1, that the discretionary power vested in the authority to confiscate the entire stock should be exercised with reference to the facts and circumstances of each case. Viewed in that perspective, I do not think the punishment should be so drastic an to warrant confiscation of the entire 38 bags of sugar. Hence, the confiscation can be restricted to the four, bags of sugar which could not be properly accounted. To this extent, the revision will stand allowed. In view of this order, the petitioner will be entitled to the return of the 34 bags of sugar of the cost of those 34 bags if they have already been sold.