Judgment This revision is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge of Pudukottai Division made in C.A.No. 250 of 1975 confirming the order of the Collector of Pudukottai confiscating the paddy seized and also the carts and bulls. 2. The facts are: On 15th August, 1975, the Special Tahsildar, Mobile Squad, Arantangi, found four bullock carts carrying 27 bags of paddy and another bullock cart with broken wheel, loaded with six bags of paddy. He seized them. The persons who were transporting the paddy admitted that they were transporting the paddy to Vellayapuram in Ramanathapuram District. Notices were issued to the concerned persons to show cause as to why the paddy and the bulls and the carts should not be confiscated. The revision petitioners stated that the seizure was made in the paddy was transported from Ekkanivayal village to their own village. The learned Collector rejected their claim and ordered confiscation of all the paddy along with the carts and bulls. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order of the Collector. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this petition. 3. The only point raised before me is that the seizure of paddy and bulls and bullock-carts is illegal as no copy of the mahazar was given and as the mandatory provisions contained in sections 102 and 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have not been complied with at the time of seizure. The attention of the learned Sessions Judge to this aspect was drawn and the ruling of the Court in M.V. Kupusamy v. Taluk Supply Officer, Sriperumbudur was cited before him. The learned Sessions Judge observes: “No doubt the ruling relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant would show that the mandatory provisions contained in sections 102 and 103, Criminal Procedure Code, have to be complied with in full and the non-compliance of the same would render a seizure illegal”. But the learned Sessions Judge proceeds to observe: “But there is absolutely no merit in the argument advanced. Assuming that theseizure is not in compliance with the provisions contained in sections 102 and 103, Criminal Procedure Code, that by itself will not at all support the case of the appellants”. This observation is clearly wrong. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have followed the ruling of this Court which is binding on him and should have held that the seizure is illegal. This observation is clearly wrong. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have followed the ruling of this Court which is binding on him and should have held that the seizure is illegal. It is binding on the Subordinate Courts to follow the rulings of the High Court unless they are clearly distinguishable on facts or on law. Failure to do so will amount to dereliction of duty. In this case, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that the revision petitioners have admitted that they were taking paddy to Vellayapuram village in Ramanathapuram District without a valid permit and that such transport of paddy without a valid permit from one District to another District is illegal. Neither the Collector's order nor the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge shows as to what offence the revision petitioners have committed. It is clear from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge that the mandatory provisions in regard to the seizure were not observed. The seizure is therefore illegal. The order of the learned Sessions Judge is clearly not sustainable. The revision is allowed and the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and the order confiscating the paddy, the bulls and the bullock carts is set aside.