HARBHAJANSINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench has framed the following question and referred it to us for answer :-

(2.) IT appears that the Collector proceeded against the petitioner and 11 others under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the 'act' ). He served a show cause notice under Section 6-B of the Act and proposed to confiscate the wheat and trucks. After enquiry, the Collector found the applicants to have contravened the provisions of the Inter-Zonal Wheat and wheat Products (Movement Control) Order, 1973, and confiscated the wheat as well as the trucks. The petitioner and others preferred an appeal to the Judicial authority, i. e. the District and Sessions Judge, Khandwa, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and two others, but allowed the appeal of the other appellants.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Judicial Authority, Harbhajansingh (revisionpetitioner)filed this revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure. A preliminary question arose whether the Judicial Authority was persona designate and not a Court inferior to the High Court. In the latter case, this revision would be incompetent. In Sitaram v. State of M. P. , 1975 Jab LJ 884, a division Bench of this Court, to which the question had been expressly referred, took the view that a District and Sessions Judge, appointed as Judicial Authority under Section 6-C (1) of the Act, acts as a persona designata so that his decisions are not revisable by the High Court. The remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution (as it then stood) was available.