1.The respondent is a partner in M/s. T.S. Baba Sahib and Co. dealers in foodgrains at Polur, a village in the North Arcot District. On 13.6.1968, the District Supply Officer of this district, inspected his company and detected that he had 37 bags of ragi. These bags belonged to Sriramulu Chettiar, the respondent, who was a partner in this firm. He had no licence under the Madras Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964. He contended that he was under the bona fide impression that no separate licence was necessary for dealing in ragi. Observing that he had violated Clauses 3(1) and (2) of the Madras Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order 1964, the Collector, acting under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Confiscated the 37 bags to Government. The respondent preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge. North Arcot and he. by his order in Crl. M.P. No. 126 of 1969, set aside the confiscation after administering a warning to him. The correctness of this order is now canvassed by the State in this revision.
2. Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act (Act X of 1955) states that where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto, it may be produced, without any unreasonable delay, before the Collector of the district or. the presidency town in which such essential commodity is seized and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of the order, the Collector, if satisfied that there has been a contravention of order, may order confiscation of the essential commodity so seized. Section 6C provides for an appeal by saving that any person aggrieved by an under of confiscation under Section 6A may. within one month from the date of the communication to him of such order, appeal to any judicial authority appointed by the State Government concerned and the judicial authority shall, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, pass such order as it may think fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against. Thus, as regards the provisions for confiscation, we see that a different procedure is now provided and a distinct right, of appeal is conferred. That part is kept separate and there is no provision that it has anything to do with ordinary criminal courts. Prosecutions for the breach of the provisions of the various Foodgrains control orders are made to lie in ordinary criminal Courts and Section 7 of the Act deals with penalties for each contraventions. Thus a distinction is made in the Act itself between a judicial authority and a court. There is no provision in the Act to the effect that an appeal lies to the Court of Session from an order of confiscation made by the Collector. There, in Section 6C. is reference only to a iudicial authority and this iudicial authority appointed by the State Government cannot be construed as an inferior criminal Court subject to the exercise of the re-visional powers by the High Court under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It follows that no revision lies. Even otherwise there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the judicial authority.
3. The revision fails and the same is dismissed.