Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401, CrPC, is directed against the order dated 19.03.2004 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, Camp Chittorgarh (for short, "the Appellate Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 7/2004, whereby the appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by respondent Jeet Mal and set-aside the order dated 10.11.2003 passed by the District Collector, Chittorgarh, whereby the wheat seized from the respondent, weighing 32.42 Quintals and 12.99 Quintals, which was alleged to be in excess of stock, were confiscated to the State. 2. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and perused the order of the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the District Collector, Chittorgarh. 3. The respondent is running a fair-price shop. Certain quantity of wheat was made available to the respondent for distribution to the persons below poverty line. A secret information was received by the Tehsildar, Rawatbhata that the wheat available with the respondent are likely to be sold in the market by black-marketing. The Tehsildar, alongwith Enforcement Inspector Puran Singh went to the site and found wheat in 33 bags which were weighing 32.42 quintals. The entire stock of the fair-price shop was checked and in the stock, it was found 111.90 quintals. 5.7 quintals of wheat was given to the Patwari for distribution amongst the helpless persons. Thus, the total wheat weighing 117.60 quintals was to be there in the stock. According to the stock register, the respondent should have 104.61 quintals of wheat in possession on the relevant date and time. Thus, the wheat weighing 12.99 quintals was found excess in the stock and, therefore, the entire wheat was seized. 4. Before the Collector, the respondent has placed the material showing that there was no excess wheat than that of stock and the wheat weighing 45.41 quintals was to be distributed to the persons, which was not found loaded in the truck as alleged by the informant. Various persons, who were entitled to get the wheat, have filed affidavits before the Collector stating therein that the wheat weighing 45.41 quintals was kept for distribution to those persons who we engaged in famine relief work and the distribution had not taken place; on the contrary, it was yet to be distributed. Various persons, who were entitled to get the wheat, have filed affidavits before the Collector stating therein that the wheat weighing 45.41 quintals was kept for distribution to those persons who we engaged in famine relief work and the distribution had not taken place; on the contrary, it was yet to be distributed. Relying on the affidavits of various persons named out in the order, in respect of whom the said wheat was to be distributed under famine relief work and the record made available, the learned District & Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the order directing confiscation of the wheat is erroneous, which cannot be sustained and accordingly the confiscation order passed by the Collector has been set-aside. 5. I have carefully gone through the orders of both the Courts below and the material made available on record. In my view, the order of the Collector is even otherwise not sustainable. The District & Sessions Judge, while exercising the appellate power, by a well-reasoned order, came to the conclusion that the order of the District Collector, confiscating the wheat, was not sustainable and accordingly the same was set-aside. I find no reasons to take a view different from that taken by the District & Sessions Judge. While making order confiscating the wheat weighing 45.41 quintals, the Collector failed to consider the reply filed by the respondent as also the affidavits filed by number of persons. In the circumstances, therefore, there appears no illegality, error or perversity in the order impugned. 6. Consequently, the revision petition lacks merit and it is dismissed accordingly.