STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. C M ABDUL JALEEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in these two revision petitions are Silk Reelers. The Assistant Director (Enforcement), Department of Sericulture, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore on verification of the accounts of the respondents, found that they had disposed of silk reeled by them outside the Silk Exchange in violation of Section 8A of the Karnataka Silkworm Seed Cocoon And Silk Yarn (Regulation of Production, Supply, Distribution and Sale) Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules and notifications issued thereunder. On the basis of that report, the Deputy Director (Endorcement), Department of Sericulture, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore, registered cases against the respondents. The Director of Sericulture, on hearing them, imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on each of the respondents.. Being aggrieved by the said orders of the Director of Sericulture, the respondents filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 47/1981 and 48/1981 respectively on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, who, by his order dated 18.11 1982, allowed both the appeals and set aside the said orders of the Director of Sertculture, Bangalore. Aggrieved by the said orders of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, the State has preferred these two revision petitions.

(2.) A preliminary point regarding the maintainability of these revision petitions was raised by Sri Paras Jain, learned Advocate for the respondents. According to him, the order of the learned Sessions Judge is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this court under Sections 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. since the Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order did not act as an inferior Criminal Court but acted as persona designata being a statutory authority constituted under the Act to dispose of appeals arising thereunder and since the order of the Sessions Judge is made final under Section 1?(3) of the Act. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision in The State of Karnataka and another v Thimmappa (I.L.R. 1984(2) Karnataka 933).

(3.) The learned Single Judge, who heard the parties on the preliminary point," doubted the correctness of the decision in Thimmappa's case and has therefore referred these two revision petitions to the Division Bench for decision Therefore, the question for consideration is whether a party to an appeal disposed of by the Sessions Judge under Section 13(3) of the Act can file a revision petition under Sections 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. Section 13(3) of the Act reads thus: