PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. RAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which give rise to this revision are these: The Respon. dents are the owners of a rice mill known as Venkateswara Rice Mill, situated at Sirvel in Allagadda Taluk, They have been carrying on the business of milling Paddy from 2-1-70. They applied for two licences under the Andhra Pradesh Food Grains Dealers' Licensing Order, 1964, hereinafter referred to as the Order, and also for a license under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act. They obtained a food grains licence on 22-1-70 under the Order and also a licence on 27-12-69 under the Act. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell (Civil Supplies), Anantapur paid a visit to the rice mill of the Petitioners on 27-6-70 and inspected the same. He found the fallowing stock in the rice mill on that day: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_372_ALT1_1974Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) He verified the accounts of the mill and noticed that the Respondents had been carrying on business in Paddy and Rice from 2-1-70 to 21-1-70 without a valid licence required under the Order. He also noticed that the Respondents had failed to deliver the mill levy to the Food Corporation of India, Kurnool even after obtaining the licences under the Order and the Act as required under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) and Restriction on Sale Order, 1967. He also found that the petitioners have disposed cf the rice to private dealers in Kurnool District and in other districts of the State. Consequently, the Deputy Seperin tendent of Police, Vigilance Cell (Civil Supplies)Anantapur seized the said 714 Quintals of rice under panchanamas and submitted his report with the record of enquiry to the Collector, Kurnool for further action. A notice calling for an explanation was issued to the respondents under S. 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In their explanation to the show cause notice, the Respondents have not denied the various ir egularities and violations of the control orders but pleaded that these irregularities were committed due to being new to the business and inexperience. They also pleaded that there was no mala fide intention as such and the contravention of the relevant provisions of the Order and the Act may be condoned. The Collector found that the petitioners have contravened the provisions of the Order and the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy and Restriction on Sale Order, 1967. He, therefore, ordered that under S. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 the said 74 Quintals of Rice seized from the Respondents be confiscated to Government. An appeal against this order was preferred before the District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur, who is the appellate authority inder the Essential Commodities Act. This appeal was allowed and the 714 Quintals of rice confiscated to Government by the Order of the Collector was directed to be released. Hence the State has preferred this revision against the order of the appellate authority.

(3.) Mr. Ayyupa Reddy, the learned advocate for the respondent contends that this revision is not maintainable because the District and Sessions Judge who has been appointed as the appellate Authority is not an inferior criminal court but he it only a persona designata, In the alternative he contend that even if it is held that the District and Sessions Judge acting under 3. 6.C of the Essential Commodities Act Is an inferior Criminal court, never the less, this revision is not maintainable having regard to the provisions of S. 435, Cr. P,C. In support of his contention he relies upon a ruling of the Mysore High Court in The ittte of Mysore v. P.P. Naik] l wherein it was held that having rgard to the provision! of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 the judicial authority appointed under S, 6-C thereof is not an inferior criminal court within the meaning of S. 17-B, Cr. P.C. and, therefore, is not subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Mr. Reddappa Reddy, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Public Propecutor contended that in Ramalah v. State of A P.]1 it was held that the District and Sessions Judge appointed as the judicial authority under S. 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act -is an inferior criminal court and that a revision is maintainable against the order of the District and Sessions Judge acting as appellate authority under.S. 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, in view of the provisions of Secs 435 and 439 Cr. PC. This being the decision of a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, it is of great persuasive value. The question, therefore, for consideration in this revision it whether the Dist. and Sessions Judge appointed as the Judicial authority under S. 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act is a persona designata or whether he consti tutes an inferior criminal court. If it is held that the Dist. and Sessions Judge is only A persona designata then a revision under S. 4.15, Cr. P C. is obviouly not maintainable, but if it is held that the Dist. and Session Judge actin, under S. 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act is an inferior criminal court, then the question for consideration would be whether in view of the provisions of S. 435, Cr. P.C., a revision is maintainable to this Court. So far as the question as to whether the District and Sessions Judge is an inferior crimiral court is concerned, my learned brother, Chinnappa Reddy, J, came to the conclusion that the District and Sessions Judge is an inferior, criminal court as in his opinion if the Legislature had used the words "any other authority", then there was a strong ground for holding that the authority so appointed under S. 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act would be a persona designata but the Legislature was careful in using the words "judicial authority" in S. 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act and, therefore bearing this distinction in mind, my learned brother came to the conclusion that the District and Sessions Judge appointed under S. 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act was an Inferior Criminal Court. He bad reinforced his conclusion by several rulings of the Madras High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court reported In Ramaswami Goundam v. Velappa Goundan], Parthasaradhi Naidu v. Koteswara Rao,14 and Krishna Brahman v , Chenchi Reddy] 1. But with reipect, I am of opinion that these rulings do not reinforce the conclusion arrived at by my learned brother. In Prathsaradhi Naidu v. Kotetwara Rao]2 the learned judges of the Madras High Court came to the conclusion that the word Judge employed in S. 57(2) of the Madras Local Boards Act, 1922 if read in conjunction with the rules framed thereunder would lead to the conclusion that what the Legislature intended was that the authority appointed under that Act would be a court because the rules framed under the Act had used the word Court' instead of the term 'judge.' To similar effect is the decision or the Madras High Court in Rammswami Goundan v, Velappa Goaodan]3 where the int erpretation turned upon the rules framed under that Act. Unfortunately the ruling of the Madhya Pradesh High,Court cited by my learned brother does not seem to be correct because there is no case dealing with this aspect of the matter in A.I.R. 1959 M. P. 129. Hence I am of the opinion that whether the words "Judicial authoriiy" are used or the words "any other authority" are used, it will not aut omatically follow that the Legislature intended the appellate authority un der S. 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act to bean inferior criminal Court. However, in order that there should not be any conflicting decisions of the same High Court with respect to this important point of law, I deem it desirable that this case may be refered to a Bench. So far as the second question is concerned my learned brother had held that the High Court under See. 435, and Sec. 439 Cr. P. C. can revise proceedings of the Dist. and Sessions judge acting under S, 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, but find that he has not taken into consideration the words "any preceding" appearing in S. 435 Cr, P. C. Even if it is held that the appellate authority under S. 6-C an inferior criminal court, having regard to the words "any proceeding" employed in S. 435, Cr, P. C. it has to be seen whether the orders of any inferior criminal court are revisable under S. 435, Cr P C. by this Court or whether only the order of an inferior criminal court before which proceedings are taken under the Code of Criminal Procedure arerevisable.