SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(Kar) 37

Karnataka High Court
VASUNDARA TRADERS - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
Decided On : 02-14-77
CR.L.R. : 442 of 1975

Advocates:
A.M.Farooq, C.N.KAMATH

The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the role of the District and Sessions Judge as the Judicial authority under S. 6c of the Essential Commodities Act and the determination of maintainability of revision petitions.

Headnote:

Essential Commodities Act - District and Sessions Judge - S. 6b of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 - S. 6c of the Essential Commodities Act - Karnataka Foodgrains Wholesale Dealers Licensing Order 1964

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, merchants and commission agents, were transporting rice to Bangalore when it was seized by the Food Inspector. The Deputy Commissioner issued show-cause notices under Sec. 6b of the Essential Commodities Act 1955, leading to the confiscation of the rice and lorries. The petitioners appealed, and the sessions Judge partly allowed the appeals. The petitioners then filed revision petitions, questioning the maintainability of the appeals.

Finding of the Court:

The court considered whether the District and Sessions Judge appointed as the Judicial authority under S. 6c of the Essential Commodities Act is a persona designata or constitutes an inferior Criminal Court amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court. The court found that the petitioners were the rightful owners of the seized rice and that there was no contravention of the Karnataka Foodgrains (Declaration of Stocks) Order 1967. As a result, the revision petitions were allowed, and the order of confiscation was set aside.

Issues: The main issue was whether the District and Sessions Judge constituted an inferior Criminal Court amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 6c of the Essential Commodities Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the meaning of 'judicial Authority' mentioned in S. 6c of the Essential Commodities Act and the role of the District and Sessions Judge in determining the maintainability of the revision petitions. It emphasized the evidence presented by the petitioners to establish their ownership of the seized rice and the lack of contravention of the relevant order.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petitions, set aside the order of confiscation, and directed the return of the seized rice or the sale proceeds to the petitioners.

HONNIAH, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners were merchants and commission agents at Bangalore. They had obtained licences from competent authority to deal in rice under the Karnataka Foodgrains Wholesale Dealers Licensing Order 1964. They purchased 100 bags of rice and were transporting the same in lorries from sira, to Bangalore on 25-3-1975. The Food Inspector seized the rice near tumkur and reported the matter to the Deputy Commissioner. The deputy Commr issued show-cause notices under Sec. 6b of the Essential commodities Act 1955 to the drivers who were transporting the rice and the owner of the lorries. The drivers and the owner, in response to the show-cause notices, stated that the lorries were hired by the petitioners and they were transporting the rice for and on behalf of the petitioners. The Petrs appeared before the Deputy Commr and claimed that the rice belonged to them, and that they were transporting the same to their shops at Bangalore. The Deputy Commr, after going through the relevant material placed before him, passed an order confiscating the rice as well as the lorries.

( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by that decision, the petitioners filed four appeals before the sessions Judge at Tumkur, who by his order dt. 30-7-1975 partly allowed the appeals. He set aside the order of the Deputy Commr so far as it related to confiscation of the lorries, but confirmed the order in regard to confiscation of rice.

( 3 ) AS against this decision, the petitioners filed these four revision petitions. The revision petitions came up before Bhimiah, J for hearing. A preliminary point was raised on behalf of the respondent contending that the revision petitions were not maintainable under Sec. 401 Crlpc in view of the decision of this Court in State of Mysore v. Pandurang porusappa Naik. (1971) 1 Myslj. 401 in that case, Nesargi, J has held that the Judicial authority (District and Sessions Judge) appointed by the State Govt by a notificaion for the purpose of S. 6c of the Essential Commodities Act is not an inferior Criminal Court subject to the revisional powers of the High Court. In Kalidas Traders v. State of Kar, (1974) 2 Karlj. 439. and in Deputy Commr, chitradurga v. Gangaiah (1975) 2 Karlj. 143. and in Jayalakshmi Trading Co v. State of Kar (1975) 2 Karlj. 143. this Court entertained revision petitions against the orders passed by the District and Sessions Judges in appeal against the orders of the deputy Commrs passed under S. 6c of the Essential Commodities Act and disposed of the same on merits. In view of that Bhimiah, J felt that the opinion expressed by Nesargi, J required re-consideration by a Bench of this Court and that is how these revision petitions have come up before us.

( 4 ) THE question, therefore, for consideration is whether the District and Sessions Judge appointed as the Judicial authority under S. 6c of the essential Commodities Act is a persona designata or whether he constitutes an inferior Criminal Court amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court. If it is held that the District and Sessions Judge is cn. ly a persona designata then, the revision petitions are not maintainable. But if it is held that the District and Sessions Judge acting under S. 6c of the Essential Commodities Act is an inferior Criminal Court then, the revision petitions are maintainable.

( 5 ) IN these petitions we are concerned with the meaning to be given to the expression 'judicial Authority' mentioned in S. 6c of the Essential commodities Act as the appellate authority to be appointed by the State govt to hear appeals against the orders of confiscation made by the Dy commr under S. 6a and 'the District and Sessions Judge of each District' appointed by the State of Karnataka as the ' Judicial Authority ;.

( 6 ) THE expression 'persona designator' is defined by P. G. Osborn in his Law Dictionary as " a person pointed out or described as an individual as opposed to a person ascertained as a member of a class, or as filling a particular character ". Th




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top