DALCHAND Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point urged by Shri Haswani, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Sessions Judge, Gwalior, had no jurisdiction to remand the case to the original authority, namely, the Collector, Gwalior for deciding the case afresh after serving notice on the petitioner. It is argued that the Sessions Judge does not act as a Criminal Court while deciding a case under Sec. 6 -C of the Essential Commodities Act. In my opinion the petitioner is on the horns of a dilemma. If the Session Judge is taken to be not a Criminal Court exercising powers under See, 6 -C of the said Act, then this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition against the order of the Sessions Judge, and on that ground the revision petition is liable to be dismissed as incompetent.

(2.) WHEREIN it was held that no revision application under Sec. 439 Cr P.C. lies against an order of confiscation passed under Sec. 6 -C (1) of the Essential Commodities Act by the District and Sessions Judge appointed as Judicial authority under the Act. It was observed that the District Judge in such a cash acts as persona designate of the State Government.

(3.) HOWEVER , I may observe that the Judicial Authority exercising powers of the appellate Court under Sec. 6 -C of the Essential Commodities Act was competent to remand the case. The learned counsel lays emphasis on the words "pass such an order as it may think confirming modifying or annulling the order appealed against,  occurring in Sec. 6 -c of the Essential Commodities Act. The learned counsel seems to lay too much emphasis on the words "confirming, modifying or annulling'" His submission is that these words exclude the power of remand. But this argument ignores the preceding words "such order, as it may think fit..  It may be pointed out that the, words, "confirming modifying or annulling" are only illustrative and not exhaustive. In that view also no interference is called for with the impugned order.