ORDER L. C. Bhadoo, J. 1. The accused/applicant has preferred this criminal revision under section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the order dated 19th February, 2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 49/2000, arising out of the order dated 3rd December, 1999 passed by the Collector and Licensing Authority, Raigarh in Food Case No. 4/99 by which learned collector exercising the powers conferred on him under Section 6(ka) of the Madhya Pradesh Essential Commodities Act, 1955 confiscated 101.11 quintal seized paddy in favour of the State, on the ground that there was violation of conditions No.3 and 4 of the licence which was issued under Rule 8 of the Anusuchit Vastu Vyapari (Anugyapan Tatha Jamakhori per Nirbandhan) Aadesh, 1991. 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this criminal revision are that on 6th January, 1999 Shri Manoj Tripathi, Food Inspector, Kharasia along with Shri P.N. Mishra, Assistant Food Inspector inspected the premises of M/s Krishna Rice Industries Kharasia. At the time of inspection Suresh Kumar Agarwal, son of the proprietor of the firm namely Satyanarayan Agarwal was found in the premises, who was conducting the business in the firm. The inspection was made in presence of the independent witnesses after taking declaration from the son of the proprietor of the firm. During the inspection of the stock register following entries were found to have been made as on 4-1-1999 those are :- 1121.39 quintal paddy, 1237.71 rice, and 21.15 quintal kanki (small pieces of rice). On physical verification of the premises of the firm following food grains stock was found i.e. 1312.50 quintal paddy, 1046.00 quintal rice, and 2150.00 quintal kanki (small pieces of rice). 3. There were also entries in the stock register to the effect that on 41-1999 -- 80.75 quintal, on 6-1-1999 - 111.15 quintal i.e. total 191.90 quintal paddy was given to the Food Corporation of India towards levy by the firm. Thereby on the inspection of the stock register and in the physical inspection of the firm there were difference of 191.11 quintal paddy, 19 k.g. rice and 35 k.g. kanki (small pieces of rice). 4. The son of the proprietor was failed to produce the licence at the time of inspection. Then the excess paddy of 191.11 quintal was seized and was handed over on supurdnama to Suresh Kumar Agarwal. 4. The son of the proprietor was failed to produce the licence at the time of inspection. Then the excess paddy of 191.11 quintal was seized and was handed over on supurdnama to Suresh Kumar Agarwal. Accordingly the proprietor and his son were found liable for violation of the conditions No.3 and 4 of the Licence which was issued under Rule 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Anusuchit Vastu Vyapari (Anugyapan Tatha lamakhori Per Nirbandh) Order, 1991, which is punishable under section 3(7) of the Essential Commodities Act. 5. After receiving the report from the Food Inspector a show cause notice was issued to Suresh Agarwal on 8-1-1999. He submitted his reply on 16-3-1999 taking the plea that he has no connection with the affairs of the firm Krishna Rice Industries and its business is being conducted by the proprietor Satyanarayan Agarwal, stock register, bill-book and accounts are maintained by him, who was not present at the time of inspection of the firm. It was further replied that on 6-1-1999 proprietor of the firm had purchased 200 quintal paddy from the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Kharasia and the entries of daily business were being made in the night at the time of closing of the business. The Inspector had inspected the premises of the firm without calling the proprietor of the firm and arbitrarily shown 191.11 quintal paddy as excess and submitted the report. 6. On the opportunity being given by the Collector to the applicant for adducing evidence, the applicant/proprietor of the firm examined himself, his son S mesh Kumar and one Kamal Shanna, who stated that on 6-1-1999 in his presence the applicant/proprietor purchased 200 quintal paddy from Krishi Upaj Mandi and sent to the mill and the papers were with him. 7. After hearing the parties learned Collector passed the order on 3-12-1999 against which the applicant preferred a criminal appeal before the Sessions Court, who passed the impugned order dt. 19-2-2003. 8. I have heard Shri Amit Shanna, learned counsel for the applicant and Miss Shannila Singhai, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State. 9. 7. After hearing the parties learned Collector passed the order on 3-12-1999 against which the applicant preferred a criminal appeal before the Sessions Court, who passed the impugned order dt. 19-2-2003. 8. I have heard Shri Amit Shanna, learned counsel for the applicant and Miss Shannila Singhai, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State. 9. The argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the paddy which was found in excess in rice mill was purchased on the same day from the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Kharasia and was transported by a truck, which was unloaded in the rice mill just before the Food Inspector arrived in the mill for inspection and at that time the proprietor of the firm namely Satyanarayan Agarwal was at Krishi Upaj Mandi Kharasia and the papers regarding purchase of the said paddy were with him, therefore those could no~ be produced before the officer inspecting the premises of the firm. He further argued that Suresh Kumar Agarwal son of the proprietor Satyanarayan Agarwal was not the Incharge of the rice mill therefore without affording proper opportunity to the applicant/proprietor the inspection of the premises of the firn1 vitiated and the report regarding excess paddy found in the premises was arbitrary and illegal. As the entries in the stock register were always being made in the night i.e. at the time of closing of the firm, the entry of 200 quintal paddy was not there in the stock register at the time of inspection. In support of his submission learned counsel for the applicant relied on a decision of Bombay High Court Shaligram Gangaram Khandelwal Vs. The State of Maharashtral. 10. On the other hand learned counsel for the State supported the order passed by the Sessions Judge. 11. As far as the question that the firm was inspected in absence of the proprietor of the firm is concerned, it has come on record that at the time of inspection the son of the applicant/proprietor was present and everything was done in his presence. The applicant/proprietor in his cross examination has categorically stated that in his absence Shri Suresh Agarwal looks after the business of the applicant's rice mill, as such there is no substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant in this regard. 12. The applicant/proprietor in his cross examination has categorically stated that in his absence Shri Suresh Agarwal looks after the business of the applicant's rice mill, as such there is no substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant in this regard. 12. Now coming to the question that as to whether the paddy found in excess in the premises of the firm was purchased by the applicant from the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Kharasia on the same day i.e. 6-1-1999 and was sent to the rice mill and that is why the entry of the same could not be made in the stock register as the entries were usually made in the evening at the time of closing of the film. Learned Collector has given the reasons for not believing this part of defence that neither the bills of purchase were produced at the time of inspection nor these bills were presented to the concerned inspector on the same date though he resides at Kharasia. 13. The applicant in his statement has categorically stated that 200 quintal paddy was purchased on 6-1-1999 from the Krishi Upaj Mandi Kharasia and the same was sent by a truck and the papers regarding the purchase of the paddy from the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti as also the gate- pass by which this paddy was transported from Krishi Upaj Mandi, Kharasia to the premises of the applicant's firm are EX.A/1 to A/6 But these documents have been disbelieved by the Collector. A perusal of these documents reveals that EX.A/l to N6 shows that 200 quintal paddy was purchased and the same was transported by truck No. MPL-7521 and the paddy and purchased in the name of the applicant's firm and the gate pass of the concerned truck shows that the said truck carried the paddy. Similar statement has been given by Suresh Kumar Agarwal and one Kamal Sharma has also supported the statements of the applicant saying that on 6-1-1999 the applicant purchased 200 quintal paddy and he took the papers with him. 14. The concerned Inspector has not been examined by the Collector for rebutting the above statement of the applicant. More over had the Inspector was examined in the case then the applicant could have opportunity to cross-examine the Inspector about his defence. 14. The concerned Inspector has not been examined by the Collector for rebutting the above statement of the applicant. More over had the Inspector was examined in the case then the applicant could have opportunity to cross-examine the Inspector about his defence. In support of the complaint the statement of the Inspector who submitted the report before the Collector has not been taken. Therefore, the applicant has been deprived from his valuable right to cross-examine the Inspector in order to prove that this paddy which was found in excess in the premises of the firm was purchased by the applicant from the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Kharasia and the plea of the applicant in his evidence was that the entries in the stock register were being made only at the time of closing of the business. 15. Since as per the documents on record it is apparent that on the same day this 200 quintal paddy was purchased from the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Kharasia and it was sent on the same day to the premises, therefore it seems plausible that any paddy brought during the day in the premises all the entries of the same is to be effected at the time of closing of the factory. Similar view has been taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of Shaligram Gangaram Khandelwal (supra) in which the food grains which were found in excess, the proprietor of the firm gave the explanation that the Bajra of which the entry was not found in the stock register belongs to some other person who had sent the said Bajra for sale. Since the Bajra did not belong to him this explanation was accepted by the Bombay High Court. In the case in hand also there are documents on record to show that the paddy which was found in excess was brought on the same day from the Krishi Upaj Mandi and it was transported to the premises of the rice mill seems plausible. It was only for the concerned Inspector, who by examining himself before the Collector could have explain and rebut the statement of the applicant. 16. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned herein above, the finding of the learned Collector and the Sessions Judge cannot be sustained. In the result the revision filed by the applicant is allowed and the order passed by the learned Collector dt. 16. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned herein above, the finding of the learned Collector and the Sessions Judge cannot be sustained. In the result the revision filed by the applicant is allowed and the order passed by the learned Collector dt. 3-12-1999 in Food Case No. 4/99 and the order dt. 19-2-2003 passed by the Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 49/2000 are set-aside. The confiscated paddy be released to the applicant forthwith. Revision Allowed.