Judgment :- In the above criminal revision, the order, dated 13.11.2007 passed in C.A. No.140 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge at Erode, who confirmed the order of the District Collector, Erode dated 9.4.2007 passed in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.2291/2006/Ka3 is challenged. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the above revision are set out below:- a. On 5.1.2006, while the Erode District Supply Officer with the assistance of the Deputy Tahsildar was checking the vehicles, he stopped the lorry bearing registration No.K.A.01 B 2116 and found 297 bags of P.D.S. rice each containing 50 Kgs rice. From the statement given by one Durairaj, he came to the conclusion that the rice found was PDS rice and hence, the same was seized and on further examination, 913 bags of rice was seized from the premises belonging to one Kuppayammal of Thasanaickenpalayam. An F.I.R was registered against the owner of the lorry, the persons from whom the rice was seized and the drivers of the vehicle in Cr.No.8 of 2006. After the seizure of the rice, the same was sent to the Divisional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation and on an analysis of the rice, it was found that the rice seized was P.D.S. rice. b. After issuing a show cause notice and affording an opportunity of hearing, the order was passed by the District Collector in Na.Ka.2291/2006/Ka-3, dated 9.4.2007 confiscating the aforesaid quantity of rice. c. Aggrieved by the said order, the owner of the rice, namely, the petitioner herein filed an appeal in C.A.No.140 of 2007 and the same was dismissed. 3. Being aggrieved by that the above criminal revision has been filed. 4. Heard both. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the report of the analyst, which categorized the seized rice as P.D.S. rice, has not been served on the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel basing reliance on an order, dated 30.4.2002, passed in W.P.No.13476 of 1996 by Nagappan, J., contended that the non furnishing of the analysis certificate will vitiate the entire proceedings. 6. The learned counsel basing reliance on an order, dated 30.4.2002, passed in W.P.No.13476 of 1996 by Nagappan, J., contended that the non furnishing of the analysis certificate will vitiate the entire proceedings. The learned counsel further based reliance on a circular issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies by his proceedings, dated 21.1.1988, wherein, in paragraph 4 of the instructions, it is provided as follows:- "In this connection, I am to state that, in general even if the sample accompanies the lorry, it is essential to draw samples from the consignment seized in three packets, seal them, hand over one to the person from whom the seizure is made, retain one with the office who seized the stock and send the third to the quality analyst and get it analysed by him and obtain a certificate from him as to whether both sample agree. A copy of the analysis certificate should be issued to the claimant of the consignment and he should be given an opportunity to appeal against the analysis certificate. Only thereafter, final orders under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 should be passed after conducting enquiry." 7. In the said order, the learned Judge has held that the officials are under the statutory obligation to furnish a copy of the analysis certificate to the claimant of the consignment and he should be given an opportunity to appeal against the analysis certificate and only thereafter, final order of confiscation should be passed after conducting enquiry. 8. The learned counsel submitted that the seized rice is not P.D.S. rice but it is the rice distributed to the workers working under SGRY Scheme. The learned counsel submitted that due to the poverty of the workers employed under SGRY Scheme, they sold the rice given to them as part of the wages to Tmt. Vasanthi, Chinnasamy, Ramasami, Govindan, Murugan, Prabu etc., Muthampalayam, Erode District, who, according to the learned counsel, are the representatives of the poor coolie workers and they sold the rice to the petitioner to get the actual market price in respect of the rice. 9. The learned counsel further submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on the side of the respondent to prove as to from which card holders the petitioner purchased the rice. 9. The learned counsel further submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on the side of the respondent to prove as to from which card holders the petitioner purchased the rice. Relying on Clause 6(4) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities Order, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as the Order), which reads as under:- "(4) No person shall purchase any scheduled commodity obtained on a family card", the learned counsel submitted that it is incumbent upon the respondent to show that the petitioner had purchased the scheduled commodity obtained on a family card. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner had violated the Clause 6(4) of the Order. 10. The learned counsel further submitted that since the petitioner had taken a stand that the rice seized was the rice supplied to the workers working under SGRY Scheme and he has given the names of the agents of the workers from whom he had purchased the rice and it is incumbent on the respondent to have examined them to ascertain as to whether the petitioner had purchased the rice from them or not. 11. It is further contended that admittedly, the rice seized in this case is raw rice, whereas under the P.D.S. Scheme only boiled rice is being supplied and the raw rice is supplied only during festive seasons and therefore, the conclusion reached by the District Collector and the lower appellate court that the rice seized was P.D.S. rice is erroneous. 12. Countering the aforesaid submissions, the learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the quality certificate was not furnished to the petitioner is palpably false. The learned Govt. Advocate submitted that the counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the District Collector had applied for a certified copy of the quality certificate and the same was furnished to him and therefore, the contention is untenable. 13. The learned Govt. Advocate submitted that in the quality certificate itself, it has been mentioned as follows:- "Any appeal against the certificate can be preferred with the senior Regional Manager/Regional Manager within 15 days from the date of receipt of this certificate remitting a sum of Rs.40/- at the Regional Office towards reanalysis charges." 14. 13. The learned Govt. Advocate submitted that in the quality certificate itself, it has been mentioned as follows:- "Any appeal against the certificate can be preferred with the senior Regional Manager/Regional Manager within 15 days from the date of receipt of this certificate remitting a sum of Rs.40/- at the Regional Office towards reanalysis charges." 14. But after obtaining the certified copy of the quality certificate, the petitioner had not exercised the above option available to him and he had not filed any appeal challenging the correctness of the quality certificate and as per the quality certificate the rice seized was found to be P.D.S. rice. 15. The learned Govt. Advocate further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the binding nature of the notification issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, dated 21.1.1998 in W.A.No.1263 of 2009. The writ appeal was allowed by order, dated 6.11.2009 setting aside the similar order, dated 29.4.2009, passed in W.P.No.19911 of 2000. In the said order, the order, dated 30.4.2002 passed in W.P.M.P.No.13476 of 1996 has also been referred to. The Division Bench after considering the various aspects and by basing reliance on a decision of the Apex Court reported in (2007) 8 SCC 212 (Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and others vs. G. Ratnam and others), held as follows:- "14. The instructions of Commissioner of Civil Supplies (21.1.1988) provides for:-(i) taking three samples and hand over one to the person from whom the seizure is made; (ii) retain one with the office who seized the stock and (iii) send the third to the quality analyst to get it analysed and the copy of analysis certificate should be issued to the claimant of the consignment and he should be given an opportunity to appeal against the analysis certificate. The instructions given by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies are only an administrative instructions/guidelines which do not give rise to any legal right in favour of the aggrieved party." 16. The Division Bench further held that even the non furnishing of the quality certificate by itself would not vitiate the seizure and confiscation. If the claimant desired to challenge the quality analysis certificate, he could have challenged the quality analysis certificate. 17. The learned Govt. The Division Bench further held that even the non furnishing of the quality certificate by itself would not vitiate the seizure and confiscation. If the claimant desired to challenge the quality analysis certificate, he could have challenged the quality analysis certificate. 17. The learned Govt. Advocate submitted that having failed to exercise the option to appeal against the quality certificate, now it is not open to contend that the rice seized was not P.D.S. rice. The learned Govt. Advocate further submitted that when it is established that the rice seized is P.D.S. Rice, then the burden has been duly discharged by the respondent. When admittedly, it is the contention of the petitioner that he had purchased the rice from the agents of the workers working under SGRY Scheme, it is for the petitioner to summon them and examine them to prove that the rice had been purchased from them. When the petitioner admittedly had not examined any of those persons, the contention that the respondent should have summoned them and examined them to prove the case of the petitioner is fallacious. 18. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 19. In the light of the order, dated 6.11.2009, passed in W.A.No.1263 of 2009 it has to be held that the order, dated 30.4.2002 passed in W.P.No.13476 of 1996 has been over ruled. 20. As laid down by the Division Bench, the instructions issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies do not have any statutory force. However, in this case, the quality certificate had been furnished to the counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner has not chosen to exercise his right of appeal to challenge the correctness of the quality certificate. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is unsustainable. 21. As rightly pointed out by the learned Govt. Advocate that since the correctness of the quality certificate has not been challenged, the finding that the rice seized from the petitioner is P.D.S. rice stands un-rebutted. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Govt. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is unsustainable. 21. As rightly pointed out by the learned Govt. Advocate that since the correctness of the quality certificate has not been challenged, the finding that the rice seized from the petitioner is P.D.S. rice stands un-rebutted. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Govt. Advocate that when the petitioner had contended that the rice seized is not the P.D.S. rice but it was purchased by him from the agents of the workers employed under SGRY Scheme, it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to summon them and examine them as witnesses to prove his defence. But admittedly, the petitioner had not chosen to examine those persons as witnesses and failed to prove his defence and therefore, the contention that it is for the respondents to have examined those persons as witnesses to prove the case of the petitioner is unsustainable. For the aforesaid reasons I do not find any error in the order passed by the District Collector, which has been confirmed by the District Court. The reasons assigned by the authorities below cannot be said to be either erroneous or irregular. In fine, the above Criminal Revision fails and the same is dismissed.