9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court over the judicial authority under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. Justification for the High Court's interference with the appellate authority's decision on confiscation of food grains. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Revisional Jurisdiction of the High Court: The primary issue was whether the judicial authority constituted under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, is an inferior criminal court subordinate to the High Court and thus amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court held that the Sessions Judge, appointed as a judicial authority under Section 6C, is not a persona designata but functions as a court. The term "judicial authority" implies a pre-existing judicial authority exercising the judicial power of the State. The Sessions Judge, being the highest judicial officer in the district, fits this description. The Court noted that the legislative history and the language of the statute indicate that the appellate authority must be a judicial authority, not an executive one. The Court referred to the Defence of India Rules, 1962, and the amendments made by Act No. 25 of 1966, which introduced Sections 6A to 6D in the Essential Commodities Act, highlighting the shift from an executive to a judicial appellate forum. The Sessions Court, constituted under the Code of Criminal Procedure, is an inferior criminal court in relation to the High Court. Therefore, orders made by the Sessions Judge under Section 6C are subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code. 2. Justification for High Court's Interference: The second issue was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the Sessions Judge's order setting aside the confiscation of food grains. The Court emphasized that Section 6A confers discretionary power on the Collector to confiscate seized essential commodities if there is a contravention of an order made under Section 3. The Act provides for two independent proceedings: confiscation by the Collector under Section 6A and prosecution under Section 7. The Sessions Judge, acting as the appellate authority under Section 6C, annulled the confiscation order, considering the cancellation of the license and forfeiture of the security deposit as sufficient penalties. The Court reiterated that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where there is a manifest illegality or a gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court should not interfere merely because it holds a different view. The Sessions Judge, exercising appellate jurisdiction, found that confiscation was not justified in the given circumstances. The High Court's interference without establishing any recognized grounds for revisional jurisdiction was deemed incorrect. The Court noted the facts that the licensee had died, leaving behind minor children and a widow, and the business could no longer be carried on due to the cancellation of the license. Considering these factors, the Court concluded that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the Sessions Judge's order. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the Sessions Judge's order was restored. The Court emphasized the importance of exercising revisional jurisdiction judiciously and respecting the discretionary powers of the appellate authority under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act.
|
