ORDER
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/- 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.
4. Section 397, Cr.P.C. is concerned with the power of the High Court or any Sessions Judge, to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court situate within the jurisdiction and pass any appropriate order regarding the correctness, legality or propriety of such proceedings before the inferior criminal court. Section 397, Cr.P.C. to the extent relevant is as follows :-
“397. (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.”
Section 6, Cr.P.C. concerned with the heirarchy of criminal courts amenable to revisional jurisdiction under S. 397, Cr.P.C. comprise four categories viz.,
i) Courts of Session;
ii) Judicial Magistrate of the first Class and, in any metropolitan area, Metropolitan Magistrate;
iii) Judicial Magistrates of the second class; and
iv) Executive Magistrates.
The orders passed by the Courts only specified in S. 6, Cr.P.C. are revisable by the High Court under S. 397, Cr.P.C. The Joint Collector passing an order of confiscation or otherwise under the Essential Commodities Act or the Government constituted as an appellate authority cannot be considered as inferior criminal courts visualised under S. 6, Cr.P.C. It is patent from the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act that a distinction has been kept between the prosecution and confiscation proceedings. Apart from the proceedings for seizure and confiscation, S. 7 provides for launching the prosecution in a criminal court. Therefore, the confiscation proceedings should be considered as civil in nature and in any event proceedings other than proceedings for prosecution under S. 7 of the Act. Considered from this prospective also the criminal revision petition does not lie.
5. The reference is made to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jaiswal (1984) 1 APLJ 12 (Digestive Notes of Cases) wherein it is held that the Collector while exercising power under S. 6A(2) of the Essential Commodities Act is not an inferior criminal court and therefore the revision does not lie. Reference is also made to the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Khemraj Jugraj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1981 Cri LJ 1479 wherein it is held that the order of confiscation passed by the Collector or judicial authority confirming the order of the confiscation passed by the Collector is not an order by the inferior criminal court. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the revision is not maintainable as S. 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act precludes the jurisdiction of any other court except the Collector or the authority constituted under S. 6-E of the Act. It must be stated that S. 6-E ousts the jurisdiction of any other court with respect of the seizure of an essential commodity. The total ouster of jurisdiction is contemplated under S. 6-E of the Act in the event of the seizure. The Madhya Pradesh High Court did not bear in mind the distinction between the essential commodity and the vehicle by which the essential commodity is being transported. The Madhya Pradesh High Court did not consider the issue on the perspective of the ambit of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 397, Cr.P.C. I am unable to agree with the reasoning and approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court regarding recourse to S. 6-E of the Act in the context of considering the amenability to revision under S. 397, Cr.P.C.
6. The criminal revision case is not maintainable under S. 397, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is not precluded from taking appropriate proceedings. Criminal revision case dismissed.
7. Revision dismissed.