TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Sessions Judge appointed as the judicial authority under section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was a court subordinate to the High Court and amenable to revision under sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in interfering in revision with the Sessions Judge's order setting aside confiscation of the seized food grains.
Issue (i): Whether the Sessions Judge appointed as the judicial authority under section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was a court subordinate to the High Court and amenable to revision under sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
Analysis: The expression "judicial authority" in section 6C was construed to mean a pre-existing judicial officer functioning as a court and not a persona designata. The appellate forum under section 6C was intended to be part of the judicial hierarchy, and where the Sessions Judge was appointed, he acted as the Judge presiding over the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court being an inferior criminal court in relation to the High Court, its order was revisable under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Conclusion: The Sessions Judge acting under section 6C was a court subordinate to the High Court and his order was amenable to revisional jurisdiction under sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in interfering in revision with the Sessions Judge's order setting aside confiscation of the seized food grains.
Analysis: Confiscation under section 6A was a discretionary and penal consequence distinct from cancellation of licence and forfeiture of security. Revisional power under section 439 was to be exercised only in exceptional cases involving manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice, and not merely because a different view on confiscation was possible. The Sessions Judge had considered the relevant circumstances and exercised his appellate discretion to hold confiscation unjust, and no exceptional ground for revisional interference was made out.
Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in upsetting the Sessions Judge's order in revision.
Final Conclusion: The confiscation order as set aside by the Sessions Judge was restored, and the High Court's revisional interference was held unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: A judicial authority appointed under section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 functions as a court within the judicial hierarchy, and revisional interference with its discretionary order is warranted only on exceptional grounds such as manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
