Unaccounted excess stock may be confiscated when the mill operator provides no adequate supporting records.

On 9 February 2009, a Food Inspector inspected the applicant’s rice mill and found stock exceeding the stock-register entries: 64.22 quintals of paddy, 56.77 quintals of rice and 32.92 quintals of kanki.

The applicant’s son, who was present, produced no supporting documents at the inspection.

The applicant later claimed the stock had been purchased from another rice mill, but the Collector found the documents insufficient and ordered confiscation under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

The applicant’s appeal was dismissed, prompting this revision.

He challenged, among other things, proof of the panchnama and seizure memo, the treatment of bills Nos. 48 and 49, and the Food Inspector’s examination of the stock register.

Whether the confiscation order and its affirmance on appeal warranted interference in revision, given the alleged deficiencies in proof of the panchnama and seizure memo and the failure to consider the applicant’s bills.

Whether the documents relating to stock allegedly purchased from another rice mill adequately accounted for the excess stock found at the applicant’s mill.

The proceedings arose under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and the Chhattisgarh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 2007.

The Court’s stated basis was that the applicant had not produced documents relating to the inspected mill sufficient to account for the excess stock, and that the Collector’s and appellate court’s orders could be disturbed in revision only if they disclosed an illegality, infirmity or error of law warranting interference.

The judgment cites no precedent or further statutory test.

The stock register did not correspond with the stock physically found at the mill, and no documents relating to that mill were produced to explain the discrepancy.

The Collector considered the applicant’s documents concerning another mill but found them insufficient to establish the source or lawful accounting of the seized stock.

In those circumstances, the Court found no illegality, infirmity or error of law in the concurrent orders and rejected the applicant’s challenges.