JUDGMENT 1. - These revision petitions under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are directed against the judgment dated October 13, 1984 of the Sessions Judge, Balotra in Criminal appeals No. 111/82 and 112/82. 2. On March 2, 1982 the Station House Officer, Police Station Barmer, on information that cement was being transported illegally in truck going towards Balotra, checked the truck Nos. RSQ 3729 and RSQ 5475 and found cement being taken illegally in those trucks. He seized the bags of cement which were in the truck as also the vehicles and presented an application before the District Magistrate, Banner for action under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The District Magistrate, Barmer, by his order dated the 24th November, 1982 directed confiscation of the bags of cement. By a subsequent order dated November 24, 1982 lie also directed confiscation of the trucks No. RSQ 3729 and RSQ 5475; gave the same in the custody of the Station House Officer, Police Station, Barmer and ordered the trucks to be auctioned. Against this order two appeals were preferred before the Sessions Judge, Balotra (I) by Dharam Ram being Criminal appeal No. 111/82 and (2) by Pokar Ram being Criminal appeal No. 112/82. Both these appeals were dismissed by the Sessions Judge on the ground that the appeal against the order of confiscation passed under Section 6-C lay to the State Government and now that the State Government had already appointed a committee for the purpose hearing the appeals by the notification dated the October 1, 1982, the appeals filed by the petitioners before the Court of Sessions were not maintainable. 3. Two separate revisions have now been filed before this Court against the aforesaid order of the Sessions Judge by Dharma Ram and Pokar Ram. 4. Mr. M.C. Bhandari, counsel for the petitioner appearing in both I the revision petitions has urged that the Sessions Judge having come to the I conclusion that the appeal against the order of confiscation was not maintainable before the Sessions Judge and lay before the State Government to be I heard by the committee now appointed for the purpose, ought rot to have I dismissed the appeals but should have merely returned the appeals for I presentation before the proper authority. He has sought support of his contention by a decision of this Court in M/s Gajendra Industries, Deeg v. The State of Rajasthan, 1983 RCC P. 310 , wherein it was observed : "When it is held that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the appeal is not maintainable before him proper forum to entertain the appeal is the State Government, it was for the Sessions Judge to return the appeal to the appellant for the proper authority. He has erred in dismissing the appeal. When he has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, he has no jurisdiction to decide and dispose off the appeal. By dismissing the appeal he has disposed off the appeal without having jurisdiction to entertain it, hence the order of the learned Sessions Judge is incorrect." The above decision applies to the present case and fully covers the question involved in the present revision petitions. 5. The revision petitions are accordingly allowed and the order of dismissal passed by the Sessions Judge, Balotra dated October 13, 1984 is set aside and the learned Sessions Judge is directed to return the appeals to the petitioner for presentation before the appropriate authority.Revision allowed. *******