Judgment :- The respondent is a partner in M/s. T. S. Baba Sahib and Co., dealers in food-grains at Polur a village in the North Arcot District. On 13-6-1968 the District Supply Officer of this district, inspected his company and detected that he had 37 bags of ragi. These bags belonged to Sriramulu Chettiar, the respondent, who was a partner in this firm. He had no licence under the Madras Food-grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964. He contended that he was under, the bona fide impression that no separate licence was necessary for dealing in ragi. Observing that he had violated clauses 3(1) and (2) of the Madras Food-grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 the Collector, acting under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, confiscated the 37 bags to Government. The respondent preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge. North Arcot and he by his order in Crl.M.P. No. 126 of 1969, set aside the confiscation after administering a warning to him. The correctness of this order is now canvassed by the State in this revision. 2. Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (Act X of 1955) states that where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto, it may be produced, without any unreasonable delay, before the Collector of the district or the presidency town in which such essential commodity is seized and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of order, the Collector, if satisfied that there has been a contravention of order, may order confiscation of the essential commodity so seized. Section 6-C provides for an appeal by saying that any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation under Section 6-A 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 an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, pass such order as it may think fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against. Thus, as regards the provisions for confiscation we see that a different procedure is now provided and a distinct right of appeal is conferred. That part is kept separate and there is no provision that it has anything to do with ordinary criminal courts. Thus, as regards the provisions for confiscation we see that a different procedure is now provided and a distinct right of appeal is conferred. That part is kept separate and there is no provision that it has anything to do with ordinary criminal courts. Prosecutions for the breach of the provisions of the various food-grains control orders are made to lie in ordinary criminal Courts and Section 7 of the Act deals with penalties for such contraventions. Thus a distinction is made in the Act, itself between a judicial authority and a court. There is no provision in the Act to the effect that an appeal lies to the Court of Session from an order of confiscation made by the Collector. There in Section 6-C is reference only to a judicial authority and this judicial authority appointed by the State Government cannot be construed as an inferior criminal Court subject to the exercise of the revisional powers by the High Court under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It follows that no revision lies. Even otherwise there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the judicial authority. 3. The revision fails and the same is dismissed.