1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD) No.416 of 2011 B.Ponnar ... Revision Petitioner/Appellant Vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer, Trichy, Trichy District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D., Trichy. (Crime No.729/2010) . . . Respondent/Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the entire records in unnumbered C.A. of 2011 on the file of Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Trichy and to set aside the order of the 1st Respondent in Na.Ka.S2/894/2010 dated 18.03.2011 and release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No. TN-45-P-1411. For petitioner : Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R By consent, the Criminal Revision Case itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-45- P-1411 belongs to him, was confiscated by the District Revenue Officer vide order dated 18.03.2011 and challenging the vires of the same, he preferred an appeal under Section 6(C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Section 374 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Trichy. The said petition was returned vide endorsement dated 07.04.2011 stating that "1. Petition should be filed in proper court. Hence, returned." The appeal petition was represented by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stating among other things that as per 1981 amendment made to the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Judicial authority appointed by the State is competent to hear the appeal and hence, prayed for the entertainment of the appeal petition. However, the appeal petition was once again returned stating https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 that the appeal under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Amended) should be filed in proper forum. Challenging the vires of the return of the appeal papers, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 3. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that vide amendment dated 03.09.1966, Section 6A came to be included to the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and at that time, the judicial authorities are competent to hear the appeal against the orders passed by the authorities and on 01.09.1982, amendment came into force for a period of 10 years, wherein the State is substituted as competent authority. As per Amendment Act, 34 of 1993, "for any judicial authority", "the State Government" being the appellate Authority, seized to have effect and at present, the judicial authority appointed by the State Government is competent to hear the appeal. 4. The attention of this Court was also drawn to Section 6C(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and it reads as follows: "(1) Any person aggrieved by an order 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 any opportunity to the appellant to be heard, pass such order as it make think fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against." 5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit that as against the orders passed by the District Revenue Officer, the competent authority is the State Government and the return endorsement made by the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tricy is in order. 6. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record. 7. A perusal of the amendment Act 18 of 1981, which came into being on 01.09.1982 discloses that the word "State Government concerned and the State Government" occurs in Section 6C(1) was substituted in the place of "any judicial authority appointed by the State Government and the judicial authority" and originally it was for 10 years and as per amendment Act, 34 of 1993 it was extended for another period of 15 years and the said period expired in the year 2008. Therefore, the result being the substituted words "State Government concerned and the State Government" stands seized to have effect and the appellate authority is "any judicial authority appointed by the State Government and the judicial authority". 8. In the light of the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that against the order dated 18.03.2011 passed by the District Revenue Officer in Na.Ka.S2/894/2010 against the revision petitioner, the appellate authority is the District Judge, Trichy. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of and the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Trichy is directed to take the appeal on file and if the papers are in order, number it and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The Registry is directed to return the original appeal memorandum to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner after obtaining a xerox copy of the same. sj Sd/- Assistant Registrar[P&A] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Trichy. 2.The District Revenue Officer, Trichy, Trichy District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D., Trichy. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.R.C.(MD) No.416 of 2011 Dated:28.06.2011 3P/5C RPB 08.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/