Dalchand Sukhlal vs State of Madhya Pradesh

C.M. Lodha, J.—The only point urged by Shri Haswani, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Sessions Judge, Gwalior, had no jurisdiction to remand the case to the original authority, namely, the Collector, Gwalior, for deciding the case afresh after serving notice on the petitioner. It is argued that the Sessions Judge does not act as a Criminal Court while deciding a case u/s 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, In my opinion, the petitioner is on the horns of a dilemma. If the Sessions Judge is taken to be not a Criminal Court exercising powers u/s 6-C of the said Act, then this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition against the order of the Sessions Judge, and on that ground the revision petition is liable to be dismissed as incompetent.

In this connection I may refer to a Bench decision of this Court reported in Sitaram Deoktehan Heda v. State of M.P. 1975 M P L J 498, wherein it was held that no revision application u/s 439, Criminal Procedure Code lies against an order of confiscation passed u/s 6-C(1) of the Essential Commodities Act by the District and Sessions Judge appointed as Judicial authority under the Act. It was observed that the District Judge in such a case acts as persona designata of the State Government.

It would not be out of place to mention, here, that a different view was taken in The Public Prosecutor Vs. Legisetty Ramayya and Another, , where the learned Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court have held that the District and Sessions decided on (Gwalior) arising out of the order of Surendianath Awasthi, Sessions Judge acting as an appellate authority u/s 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act in confiscation proceedings is a Court and its orders are revisable. This ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court does not seem to have been brought to the notice of the learned Judges of this Court, vrtio decided Sitarams case (supra). 4.

However, I may observe that the Judicial Authority exercising powers of the appellate Court u/s 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act was competent to remand the case. The learned counsel lays emphasis on the words "pass such an order, as it may think, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against," occuring in section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act The learned counsel seems to lay too much emphasis on the words "confirming, modifying or annulling". His submission is that these words exclude the power of remand. But this argument ignores the preceding words "such order, as it may think fit ", It may be pointed out that the words "confirming, modifying or annulling" are only illustrative and not exhaustive, In that view also no interference is called for with the impugned order.

Thus I hold that this revision petition is incompetent on the view taken by this Court in Sitaram''s case (supra) and the order does not call for interference.

With these observations, this revision petition is dismissed summarily.