SAHAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Section 72 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910 provides for confiscation proceedings. The confiscation order can be passed by the Collector. Sub-section (7) of Section 72 of the Act provides that against the order of confiscation appeal lies to such judicial authority as may be appointed in that behalf by the State Government. The State Government has appointed the "District Judge" to hear such appeals.

(2.) In the present case the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the District Judge which has been decided by the impugned order. Against the order of District Judge the petitioner has preferred this Criminal revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

(3.) A criminal revision will lie only against orders passed by "subordinate Criminal Courts" under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question to be answered for considering the maintainability of this Criminal revision, therefore, is whether the District Judge, passing an order in appeal under section 72(7) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910, is exercising powers of working under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or not. There is nothing in the Act or the Rules to indicate that the procedure to be followed by the appellate authority will be the same as prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure.