VASUNDARA TRADERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were merchants and commission agents at Bangalore. They had obtained licences from competent authority to deal in rice under the Karnataka Foodgrains Wholesale Dealers Licensing Order 1964. They purchased 100 bags of rice and were transporting the same in lorries from Sira, to Bangalore on 25-3-1975. The Food Inspector seized the rice near Tumkur and reported the matter to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commr issued show-cause notices under Sec.6B of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 to the drivers who were transporting the rice and the owner of the lorries. The drivers and the owner, in response to the show-cause notices, stated that the lorries were hired by the petitioners and they were transporting the rice for and on behalf of the petitioners. The Petrs appeared before the Deputy Commr and claimed that the rice belonged to them, and that they were transporting the same to their shops at Bangalore. The Deputy Commr, after going through the relevant material placed before him, passed an order confiscating the rice as well as the lorries.

(2.) Aggrieved by that decision, the petitioners filed four appeals before the Sessions Judge at Tumkur, who by his order dt.30-7-1975 partly allowed the appeals. He set aside the order of the Deputy Commr so far as it related to confiscation of the lorries, but confirmed the order in regard to confiscation of rice.

(3.) As against this decision, the petitioners filed these four revision petitions. The revision petitions came up before Bhimiah, J for hearing. A preliminary point was raised on behalf of the respondent contending that the revision petitions were not maintainable under Sec.401 CrlPC in view of the decision of this Court in State of Mysore v. Pandurang Porusappa Naik . (1971) 1 MysLJ. 401 In that case, Nesargi, J has held that the Judicial authority (District and Sessions Judge) appointed by the State Govt by a notificaion for the purpose of S.6C of the Essential Commodities Act is not an inferior Criminal Court subject to the revisional powers of the High Court. In Kalidas Traders v. State of Kar, (1974) 2 KarLJ. 439. and in Deputy Commr, Chitradurga v. Gangaiah (1975) 2 KarLJ. 143. and in Jayalakshmi Trading Co v. State of Kar (1975) 2 KarLJ. 143. this Court entertained revision petitions against the orders passed by the District and Sessions Judges in appeal against the orders of the Deputy Commrs passed under S.6C of the Essential Commodities Act and disposed of the same on merits. In view of that Bhimiah, J felt that the opinion expressed by Nesargi, J required re-consideration by a Bench of this Court and that is how these revision petitions have come up before us.