JUDGMENT

DESAI, J. :—This appeal by special leave is directed against the order made by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 90 of 1973 setting aside the order made by the Sessions Judge, Mandsaur Division in Crl. A. No. 104 of 1972 against the order made by the Collector of Mandsaur confiscating the foodgrains in the quantity of 484 quintals 74 kg. of wheat and 135 quintals 36 kg. of rice under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. The petitioner Thakur Das son of Lila Ram Sindhi who died pending the petition, was a licenced dealer in foodgrains having obtained a licence under the Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licencing Order. 1965 (for short the order) issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act for short). The licence enabled him to store for sale and sell foodgrains set out in Schedule I to the Order. By the terms of the licence the licensee was obligated to maintain a register of daily accounts in the prescribed form for each of the foodgrains for which the licence was issued and there was further obligation to complete the accounts for each day on the day to which they relate unless prevented by reasonable cause, the burden of providing which would be upon him. The licencee had to deposit at the commencement of licence, the amount of security deposit as provided by Cl. (6) of the Order. Clauses (8) and (9) conferred power on the licensing authority - Collector of the District in this case - to cancel the licence and to forfeit the security in the event of contravention of any condition of licence.

3. The Food inspector on a visit to the licenced premises on 13th August 1972 found certain irregularities in the accounts and submitted a report on the basis of which the licensing authority issued notice dated 21st August 1972 to the licensee calling upon him to show cause within 24 hours why the licence should not be cancelled, the security deposit may not be forfeited and the seized foodgrains may not be confiscated. Ultimately the licensing authority directed confiscation of the seized food-grains, cancelled the licence issued in favour of the licensee and forfeited the security deposit. The licensee appealed to the judicial authority constituted under S. 6-C of the Act, being the Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, against that part of the order by which the seized foodgrains were ordered to be confiscated. The judicial authority was of the opinion that: in the facts and circumstances of the case cancellation of the licence and the forfeiture of the security deposit is quite sufficient and it is not just to confiscate the grains worth Rs. 50,000/- for the alleged contravention and directed that the seized foodgrains be sold to some licensed dealer at controlled price and the price so realised be refunded to the licensee. The State of Madhya Pradesh and the Licensing Authority preferred a revision application to the High Court against the order of the judicial authority. The High Court disagreed with the opinion of the Sessions Judge and held that in the facts and circumstances of the case confiscation was just and proper and accordingly set aside the order of the appellate authority and restored the order of the Collector.

4. Two contentions were raised before the High Court and the same were canvassed before us. It was contended : (1) the judicial authority constituted by the State Government under S. 6C of the Act to hear appeals against the order of confiscation that may be made by the licensing authority under S. 6A is not an inferior criminal court subordinate to the High Court and amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 435 read with Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure : (2) in the facts and circumstances of this case, the High court was not justified in interfering with the order of the appellate authority who had exercised its discretion one way merely because the High Court took a different view of the matter.

5. Section