TATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BALKRISHNA HARI PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A couple of important questions have been posed before us by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in a very well written and elaborate judgment, dated 23rd/25th June, 1999 in Criminal Revision Application no. 214/92. The matter arose under the provisions of the amended Indian Forest act, 1927 (hereinafter, referred to as the "said Act"), whereby, a whole chapter was added starting from Section 61 A. An appeal has been provided under Section 61d thereof and the learned Additional Sessions Judge having dealt with the appeal, questions arise whether revision could be filed under the provisions of section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code and whether, any other judicial officer in the sessions division, that the Sessions Judge of that sessions division, could have heard the appeal under Section 61d of the said Act.

(2.) SO far as the later point is concerned, it was sought to be urged on behalf of the applicant that if could be treated as a persona designate and therefore, none other that the Sessions Judge can hear the matter and the Additional Sessions judge will not have power or competence to deal with the matter under Section 16d of the said Act,

(3.) AT the first sight, this might appear to be unwarranted submission. However, the learned Single Judge has referred to the decision in case of Nagnath revansidhappa Cholkhane Vs. Osmansaheb Mohammedsaheb Pangaonkar (1997 Mh LJ 491), where in a case attracting Section 25 (1) of the Hyderabad Rent control Act, a view was expressed by the Division Bench to the effect that the appellate authority mentioned therein, namely, District Judge is a persona designata. However, in view of the decision in case of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation vs. Jaycee Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and others (1991 (2)SCC 637) the Honourable Supreme Court has in clear terms said that the District judge will include Additional District Judge also. In one more judgment of the supremo Court in case of Makri Gopalan Vs. Cheppilat Puthanpuravil aboobacker (1995 (5) SCC 5) in relation to an appeal under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, in Section 18 (1) (a), the subordinate Judge referred To therein meant a Judge having co-ordinate powers.