CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

State of Rajasthan vs Manak Chand Manoj Kumar

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 25 March 1987 · Citation: (1987) RLW 536 : (1987) 2 WLN 258

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.M. Lodha, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 — Section 6A
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 343 of 1983
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 359 words

Guman Mal Lodha, J.—This a criminal revision petition u/s 397 against the judgment dated 9-4-1983 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kota in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1982.

2.

The respondent M/s Manak Chand Manoj Kumar filed an appeal in the court of Sessions Judge, Kota against the order of learned District Magistrate in respect of the order passed by him u/s 6A of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981. The said appeal was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota for decision according to law.

3.

The State of Rajasthan took a preliminary objection that the Act of 1981 has come into force 1-2-1982 and after commencement of the said Act the appeal is to be heard and decided in accordance with Section 6C of the Act of 1981 and the said appeal is to be decided by the State Government. Inspite of the objection the Sessions Judge did not pass any order holding that the appeal is not maintainable, but he decided the objection and said that he is entitled to hear the appeal.

4.

Mr. Shrimal is justified in arguing that in view of the judgment of the Honb''le Rajasthan High Court in Gajendra Industries Deeg v. State of Rajasthan an appeal lies to State Government against the order of confiscation u/s 6(A) and not to the Sessions Judge. In 1983 RCC 310, it has been held that the Sessions Judge has got no authority to decide such a case. He should return the appeal to the petitioner for presentation before the proper authority.

5.

Consequently, I accept the revision petition and hold that in view of the amendment in the Essential Commodities Act, 1981 by the Amending of Act 1981 the appeal against the order of confiscation of material u/s 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, lies to the State Government and the learned Sessions Judge in view of this amendment, cannot bear the appeal.

6.

Consequently, the Sessions Judge should return the appeal for presentation before the proper authority and in case it is filed before the State, it should be considered and decided according to merit.