( 1. ) THIS revision has been preferred by Messrs Khemchand Jugraj, a dealer in foodgrains, against the Order of confiscation of 25 Quintals of Dhan (paddy), as passed by the Collector, Raj-nandgaon under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and as further confirmed by the Judicial Authority in appeal under Section 6-C ibid.

( 2. ) ON 7-2-80, Food Inspector Shrivas-tava made a surprise inspection of the applicants shop. He physically verified the actual stock and compared the same with the entries in the register of daily accounts for foodgrains maintained in Form B-l prescribed under order M. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965. It was found that full and proper entries in that register had not been made and there was excess stock of 55 Quintals of dhan which was not shown in the register. Hence the same was seized. After issue of show cause notice in accordance with Section 6-B (1) of the Essential Commodities Act (for short "act"), and after giving opportunity to the applicant for making representation and after giving further opportunity of being heard in the matter, the Collector, Rajnandgaon, being not satisfied with the explanation in the matter of omission of entries regarding excess quantity of 55 Quintals of dhan, passed the order of confiscation of only 25 Quintals of dhan out of the total excess quantity of 55 quintals. Appeal was preferred against the said order before the Judicial Authority viz, the Sessions Judge, Rainandgaon. The Judicial Authority, agreeing with the reasonings and findings of the Collector, maintained his order of confiscation and consequently, dismissed the applicants appeal. Hence now, the present revision.

( 3. ) " The learned Counsel for the applicant-dealer has urged before me that the order of the Collector and so also of the Judicial Authority are both erroneous, inasmuch as, there is no lapse on his part, in the matter of proper maintenance of the B-l Register, since, entries of the whole dav were required to be made at the end of the day and not immediately at the time when the actual purchases might have been made. It is urged in this connection that there was no mens rea on the part of the applicant-dealer to contravene the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the M. P. Food-grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965. Attention of the applicants counsel having been drawn to Section 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act, it has been vehemently argued by him that this Section 6-E does not in any way, bar this Courts jurisdiction to entertain the revision; as filed. It is argued in this connection that the bar envisaged by Section 6-E ibid, is intended for Civil Courts, but not for the High Court. It is further argued that even if the bar is intended for the High Court, then too, Section 6-E is not attracted to a case of confiscation, inasmuch as, Section 6-E as found to relate to orders "with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal or distribution".

( 4. ) I have considered the arguments pressed before me, I will, at first, take lip the question whether or not jurisdiction of the High Court is barred by virtue of Section 6-E (newly inserted with effect from 2-9-76 by the Amendment Act No. 92 of 76) after the order of confiscation by the Collector and the further order by the Judicial Authority in this regard. Thakurdas v. State of M. P. AIR 1978 SC 1 : 1978 Cri LJ 1, cited by the applicants learned Counsel, in support of his view that Judicial Authority, as mentioned in Section 6-E of the Act, is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of High Court, has no relevance for considering the question of bar as envisaged by the newly inserted Section 6-E of the Act. This Supreme Court decision had mainly concerned itself with the question whether the appellate authority under Section 6-E was or was not persona designation and it was held that he was not. Considering the facts of the particular case a laid before the Supreme Court, it was held that the Session