THAKUR DAS (DEAD) BY L. RS versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1978] 1 S.C.R. 732 · Decided: 14-10-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
732 
THAKUR DAS (DEAD) BY L. Rs 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
October 14, 1977 
[P. K. GOSWAMI, N. L. UNTWALIA AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.J 
Essential Con1n1odities Act, 1955- S.6C-Scope of Sessions Judge appoint-
ed as an appellate authority Sessions Court if an inferior criminal court in re-
lation to the Higll Court-If a revision application would lie to the Higli Court 
,. 
against an order 1nade under s.6C-Revisional jurisdiction of High Cvurt-
Scope of. 
Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 confers power on the 
Collector of the District to confiscate any essential commodity seized under s.3. 
Under s. 6C the State Government is required to appoint a judicial actthority 
to entertain and hear appeals against the order of confiscation. The appellate 
against the order of confiscation. The appellate authority is empowered to 
modify or annul the order of confiscation. 
On the ground that the licensee had committed a number of irregularities 
in contravention of the Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 
1965, the licensing authority, in addition to cancelling the licence issued to him 
<ind forfeiting the security deposit, directed confiscation of the foodgrains seized 
from the licensee. 
Against that part of the order by which the foodgrains were 
confiscated, the licensee appealed to the Sessions Judge who was the judicial 
authority constituted under s. 6C of the Act. 
Holding that it was not just to 
confiscate the grains the judicial authority directed sale of the seized grains at 
controlled rates and refund of the sale price to the licensee. 
On revision appli· 
cation by the state the High Court held that confiscation was just and proper 
.and restored the Collector's order. 
On further appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the licensee 
that (i) the judicial authority constituted under. s. 6C is not an inferior crimi· 
nal court subordinate to the High Court and, therefore, is not amenable to its 
revisional jurisdiction under s. 435 read with s. 439 Cr. P. C., 1898 and (ii) 
that the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, was not justified 
in interfering with the order of the appellate authority merely because ft was 
of opinion that the confiscation was justified. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : (1) (a) Though the Sessions Judge \Vas appointed as an appellate 
authority what the State Government did was to constitute an appellate autho· 
rity in the Sessions Court over which the Sessions Judge presides. 
The Sessions 
Court is constituted under the Code of Criminal Procedure and indisputably it 
is an inferior criminal court in relation to the High Court. Therefore, against 
an order made under s. 6C, a revision application would lie to the High Court 
and the High Court would be entitled to entertain that application under ss. 435 
and 439. Cr. P. C. [739 A-BJ 
(a) When the Sessions Judge was appointed a judicial authority it could be 
said tha<t he was persona designata and was not functioning <is a Court. [737 E.] 
(b) The expression 'Judicial' qualifying the word 'authority' clearly indicates 
that authority alone can be appointed to entertain and hear appeals under 
s. 
6C 
on 
which 
was 
conferred 
the judicial power of the State. 
The 
expression 
"judicial 
power 
of 
the 
State" 
has 
to 
be 
under-
stood in contradistinction to executive power. 
Under the 
Constitution courts 
are the repository of judicial power of the State. 
By using the expression "judi· 
cial authority" rin s. 6C it was clearly indicated that the appellate 
authority 
n1ust be one such pre-existing authority which was exercising judicial power of 
the· State. 
If any other authority was to be constituted as persona designata 
there was no purpose in qualifying the word "authority" by the specific adjec-
tive "judicial". [736 D-F] 
-
-
' 
THAKUR DAS V. M. P. STATE 
733 
( c) Secondly the concept of appeal 
inheres hierarchy and the appellate 
.authority, broadly speaking, would be higher than the authority against whose 
order the appeal can be entertained. 
Sessions Judge is the highest judicial 
.officer in the District and this situation would provide material for determining 
appellate authority. [736 G-H] 
(d) A look at the legislative history of the Act shows that under the De-
fence of India Rules, 1962 an appeal against an order of seizure of essential 
A 
commodities lay to the State Government. 
Amending Act 25 of 1966 (by 
B 
which ss. 6A

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.