Order This revision petition is by the State. It arises in the following circumstances: On 1.3.1982, between 9-30 and 12-30 hours, the Inspector of Police (Enforcement) Civil Supplies, C.I.D., Coimbatore, inspected the rice mundy belonging to the respondents who are resepctively father and son and who were licensed dealers in rice. He found a shortage of 14 bags of rice and excess of 84 bags of broken rice when he campared the stock with the accounts. No explanation appears to have been given at that time to the officer. So the Officer proceeded to the seizure of the entire stock of 62 bags of rice and 84 bags of broken rice. When a notice under Sec.6-B of the Essential Commodities Act had been issued to show cause why the seized stock should not be confiscated, the respondents offered their explanation. The main explanation was that 70 bags of broken rice was purchased on 1.3.1982, from M/s.Sri Shanmugananda Mills, Kozhinjampara and that the purchase bills regarding the 70 bags of broken rice was available with the accountant. The District Revenue Officer, after hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that the bill produced was procured after the seizure in order to thwart the proceedings. However, taking a leninent view, he ordered confiscation of 50 per cent of the seized stock under Sec.6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and ordered to release 50 per cent of the seized stock. On appeal, the Sessions Court of Coimbatore, set aside the order of the Revenue Officer and ordered for return of the 50 per cent of the stock as well. Aggrieved by that order, the State has preferred this revision. 2. As far as boiled rice is concerned, opening balance as per the stock register was 70 bags and the actual stock was 62 bags and therefore, there was a shortage of 14 bags of rice. As pointed out rightly by the Sessions Court, there was no violation of any order in respect of the 62 bags of boiled rice and that rice ought not to have been seized and the order of the District Revenue Officer confiscating it is obviously wrong. That portion of the Sessions Court order setting aside the Revenue Officer's orders regarding confiscation is a correct one. That portion of the Sessions Court order setting aside the Revenue Officer's orders regarding confiscation is a correct one. When there is violation by way of shortage the only way open to the State is to start a prosecution and not to seize for confiscate the remaining stock which is obviously in accordance with the stock register. 3. As far as 84 bags of broken rice is concerned, the Revenue Officer has not taken the pain of properly examining the explanations tendered by the party, with reference to the time at which it was tendered, the documents produced, the quantity which was found in shortage, the fact that the bill was available with the accountant, where was the accountant etc. etc. The Sessions Court has set aside the order of the Revenue Officer for three reasons. The first one is that there was nothing on record to prove that before entering the business premises of the appellant the Inspector of Police, Food Cell, had reason to believe that any contravention of the provisions of T.N.P.R. (R.T.) Act, 1974 has been committed. 4. It has been held by this Court in State by the Public Prosecutor v. Vijayakumar Public Prosecutor v. Vijayakumar 1986 L.W. (Crl.) 100 that the reason for the belief of the concerned officer need not be disclosed and would be immaterial in the confiscation proceedings. So the reasoning of the Sessions Court is a wrong one in that respect. The second reason given is that the rice was not a rare commodity at that time and that therefore the Revenue Officer should have taken a lenient view and he has not used his discretion and ordered confiscation. But, the Revenue Officer has already used the discretion given to him and has stated that he has taken a lenient view and ordered confiscation of 50 per cent only. Therefore, the order of the Revenue Officer ought not to have been interferred with on that ground. 5. Thirdly, the Sessions Court stated that there was no basis for the Revenue Officer coming to the conclusion that the bill produced did not relate to the excess found. But, the excess found is 84 bags and the bill produced was available with the accountant and it is not known why the accountant who is expected to be in the premises was not asked to show the bill. But, the excess found is 84 bags and the bill produced was available with the accountant and it is not known why the accountant who is expected to be in the premises was not asked to show the bill. At any rate, the Sessions Court ought to have either remanded the matter to the Revenue Officer for a proper finding or assessed itself properly the evidence available in order to come to a conclusion which it failed to do. Therefore, the order of the Sessions Court, as far as the broken rice is concerned is not sustainable. 6. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. The order of Sessions Court setting aside the order of the District Revenue Officer confiscating 50 per cent of 62 bags of boiled rice stands confirmed. The order of the Sessions Court ordering return of 50 per cent of the 84 bags of broken rice is set aside. This matter remanded to the Sessions Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. B.S. ----- Petition allowed.