Judgment : This is a revision filed under Sec.401, Crl.P.C. praying to revise the order of the Court of Sessions, Kanyakumari District, at Nagercoil in C.A.No.6 of 1982 directing return of 124 bags of rice to the respondent herein. 2. The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies Anti Hoarding Circle, Tirunelveli on 21.08.1981 at about 9 hours along with party, on information, intercepted a lorry No.MDA 4147 at Nagercoil-Trivandrum Main Road near Baracode Canal Bridge, which was moving from east to west and inspected the lorry in the presence of the witnesses. 124 bags of rice were loaded in the lorry. The, lorry was driven by one Kiramani (A1). The cleaner by name George (A2) was seated in the lorry. On interrogation the lorry driver Kiramani (A1) appeared to have given a statement that they had been transporting those bags of rice to one Thasaiyan (A3) of Corampu for the purpose of smuggling to Kerala. The Inspector seized the bags of rice along with the lorry MDA 4147. The respondents 1 to 10 (A4 to A13) claiming to be the retailers made a claim before the District Collector, Kanyakumari that the rice seized belonged to them. The District Collector did not accept the claim so made and ordered confiscation of the 124 bags of rice to the State. Aggrieved with the orders passed by the Collector, the respondents herein preferred an appeal in C.A.No.60 of 1982 under Sec.7 of the Essential Commodities Act before the Court of Sessions, Kanyakumari, which in turn ordered return of the value of 124 bags of Rice seized to the respondents herein, giving rise to the present revision by the State. 3. The case of the revision petitioner is that one Thasaiyan (A3) utilising the retail registration certificate of the respondents herein purchased the rice in the area concerned and attempted to transport the rice so purchased without giving levy paddy to Kerala with the aid of Kiramani (A1) and George (A2). Absolutely nothing is found traceable from the records available as to the areas from which the rice is stated to have been purchased, as an area notified by the Government of Tamil Nadu requiring a dealer to pay “levy rice or paddy” at a specified percentage to the Government before the rice or paddy purchased is removed from the area. Absolutely nothing is found traceable from the records available as to the areas from which the rice is stated to have been purchased, as an area notified by the Government of Tamil Nadu requiring a dealer to pay “levy rice or paddy” at a specified percentage to the Government before the rice or paddy purchased is removed from the area. In the absence of any notification to this effect, even assuming for argument sake that if Thasaiyan (A3) purchased the rice from the area, it can by no stretch of imagination be stated that any of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974 could have been contravened or violated by him in effecting the purchase. Further, even the stress made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the rice had been purchased with the avowed intention of smuggling the same to the nearby Kerala border, cannot amount to any refraction or violation, though it may morally be reprehensible, in the absence of any order made by the Government prohibiting transport of rice from the area notified concerned to another area, No notification is issued by the Government notifying the area, from which rice had been purchased as a prohibited area from which the rice is not allowed to be transported. Above all, it goes without saying under the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974 the retailers need not pay any levy rice at all for the purchased effected by them. The learned Sessions Judge rightly found that the paddy bags seized belonged to the respondents 1 to 10 herein, the retail dealers in rice. 4. In view of that has been stated above, there is no justification whatever to interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge and, therefore, it is that the revision filed by the State is dismissed.