(1.) This revision case is against the order of the Government modifying the order of the Joint Collector into that of direction to pay a fine of Rs. 10,784.75 in lieu of confiscation of the lorry.
(2.) The facts in the case lie in a narrow compass. The complaint was filed against the petitioner alleging that 30 bags of levy sugar were illegally transported to Giddalur at about 3.00 a.m. on 15-2-1982 and the stocks belonged to one Y. Subbarami Reddy, Fair Price Shop dealer. The lorry was seized along with 30 bags of levy sugar and the action was initiated under S. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. On the request of the lorry owner, the lorry was released on surety for Rs. 1,00,000.00 and execution of bond. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner stating that the owner of the lorry APD 6695 allowed the transport of 30 bags of levy sugar without any bills and without possessing any licence granted under the A.P.S.D.L.O., 1963. Thus, the petitioner contravened clause (3) of the said order. The owner and the driver of the lorry failed to submit the explanation. Based on the material, the joint Collector ordered confiscation of the lorry. Against this order, an appeal was filed before the Government. On appeal, it was said that there is contravention of the order but it was noticed that an option for payment of fine in lieu of the confiscation was not given in accordance with proviso (2) of Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. Finally, an order was passed enabling the owner of the lorry to pay a fine of Rs. 10,764.75 in lieu of the confiscation of the lorry. Against the order passed in appeal, this criminal revision case is filed.
(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor contended that criminal revision case under S. 397, Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as the impugned order is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction under S. 397, Cr.P.C. and as the order passed by the Government cannot be considered as an order passed by an inferior criminal court.