SHIV PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been heard on merit at this very stage and for avoiding further delay in the matter is being disposed of finally at this very stage

(2.) REVISIONIST preferred an appeal against the order of confiscation passed under section 72 of the U. P. Excise Act. This -appeal was admitted and was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, who took the view that appeals against the orders under the Act, as Rule 134 of the Rules framed under the Act presides lie to the Excise Commissioner. The learned Addl: Sessions Judge inferred want of jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal on that ground.

(3.) IT is no doubt true, Rule 134 provides appeals to the Excise Commissioner, but the Excise Commissioner cannot be a Judicial Authority. Hence, it is evident that the appeals under section 72 (7) are exception to Rule 134 and the learned Session Judge concerned should have noted the exception and probed the matter further. If he would have done so, he would have found that by Abkari Anubhag Notification No. 4986 (E)/XIII- 517, dated June 4, 1978, published in U. P. Gazette Extra dated 4th June. 1978 District Judge was appointed as Appellate Judicial Authority in respect of the order of confiscation passed by Collector under sub-section (2) and sub-section (6) of section 72 of the U. P. Excise Act.