Judgment : 1. The revision is laid by the State impugning the order dated 31.01.2005 of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Medak District passed in Crl. Appeal No.149 of 2003. 2. The facts leading to the case may briefly be stated at this stage. a) The Mandal Revenue Officer, Mulug received information that two DCM vans were diverting rice sanctioned under Food for Work Scheme (‘FFW Scheme’ for short) on 02.03.2002. The Mandal Revenue Officer visited the Damarakunta, verified and came to know that the rice and the other commodities including sugar and kerosene oil belonged to the first respondent, who is a fair price shop dealer. Considering that the petitioner had violated the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers’ (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 (‘Control Order, 1982’, for short) and Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973 (‘Control Order, 1973’, for short), the entire quantity of stock including the lorries in which the goods were transported was seized. The Joint Collector, subsequently, ordered the confiscation of the entire seized stock. So far as the lorries are concerned, as respondents 2 and 3, who are the owners of the lorries in which the stock was under transportation offered to pay the value of the lorries, the learned Joint Collector confiscated the stock and directed the payment of Rs.20,000/- per lorry towards cost of the lorries. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents herein preferred Criminal Appeal before the Principal Sessions Judge, Medak District. Through the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge reversed the order. He found the respondents not guilty. He, consequently, set aside the orders of the learned Joint Collector. Hence, the present revision by the State. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that there was no variation between book balance and ground balance in respect of the Public Distribution System (PDS) Rice, Anthyodaya Rice, Mid-Day Meal Rice, Annapurna Rice and Kerosene Oil and that there was a variation of 79% in respect of sugar. The learned Joint Collector, however, considered that sugar was not covered by the Control Orders and consequently, held that there was no violation of the Control orders by the first respondent in respect of the sugar. There was no variation in respect of kerosene oil also, as there was no stock of kerosene oil at all. The learned Joint Collector, however, considered that sugar was not covered by the Control Orders and consequently, held that there was no violation of the Control orders by the first respondent in respect of the sugar. There was no variation in respect of kerosene oil also, as there was no stock of kerosene oil at all. The entire kerosene oil received by the first respondent had already been distributed. The difference and confusion were only in respect of four varieties of rice items. 4. It may be noticed that the rice found to have been assessed admittedly belonged to FFW Scheme. It was not the PDS Rice that was supplied to the first respondent. The first respondent inter alia contended that she did not have space in her premises and consequently, she had to store the rice received under FFW programme in the house of Keerthi Krishna and in the Poultry Farm of Hanumanth Reddy. It is her further case that while the stock received by her was being shifted to the house of one Imam Sab, the lorries were intercepted and seized by the revenue authorities. 5. There is no dispute that the lorries were intercepted by the revenue authorities. There is no dispute that the lorries were carrying goods relating to the FFW scheme. The question is whether the offence of any of the contraventions of the Control Orders occurred in the process. The Control Orders were of the year 1973 and 1982. The year FFW programme was commenced in late 1990s or in the beginning of this century. The Rice covered by FFW programme is not part of either of the Control Orders. The prosecution is not able to show if any of the Control Orders is applicable to the Rice in FFW programme. 6. Admittedly, the fair price shop dealer is bound to store her stock under the licenced premises. Admittedly, the first respondent has not chosen to do so. However, where the goods were not received by her qua fair price shop dealer, but the dealer has received the same under FFW programme, the Control Orders have no application. There is no rule that the first respondent should store the same in her licenced premises. The first respondent cannot be found fault with if she had kept the stock at a place other than the licenced premises. There is no rule that the first respondent should store the same in her licenced premises. The first respondent cannot be found fault with if she had kept the stock at a place other than the licenced premises. She could not be found fault with for transporting the same through the lorries of the second and the third respondents. There was no violation of the Control Orders by the first respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 also, consequently, are not guilty of the violation of any of the Control Orders. The order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge in holding that the respondents have not violated any of the Control Orders is justified and does not require to be interfered with. There are no merits in this revision. 7. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.