LAXMESHWAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS Cr. R. P. , is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 6-1-1987 passed by the Sessions Judge at Tumkur in Criminal appeal No. 26 of 1982 setting aside the order dated 17-5-1982 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, tumkur, in case No. CCM-42 of 1981-82, ordering confiscation of groundnut seized from the accused. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are: 1,440 kgs. of groundnut was seized from the possession of the accused while he was illegally transporting the same, by the Inspector of food and Civil supplies, and produced the same before the Deputy Commissioner on 20-2-1981. The Deputy Commissioner, as per his order dated 17-5-82 passed in case no. COM. 42/81-82, confiscated the seized stock of groundnut and forfeited the sale- proceeds thereof to the Government. The accused, being aggrieved by the said order had filed an appeal before the Sessions judge in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1982 on his file. The Sessions Judge as per his Judgment and Order dated 6-1-1987 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Deputy commissioner and directed the return of confiscated seized groundnut or the sale proceeds to the accused. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order, the petitioner- state has filed this revision petition. ( 3 ) SRI. S. S. Koti, learned High Court government Pleader appearing for the State, contended that as per amended Section 6c of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ('the act' for short), the State Government has got jurisdiction to deal with the appeals tiled against the orders of confiscation, and not the Sessions Judge. The accused should have filed the appeal before the Government and the order ought to have been passed by it, as contemplated under the amended Section 6c. Therefore, the Judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, without having jurisdiction, is liable to be set aside. ( 4 ) ON the contrary, Sri C. N. Kamath, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent (accused), vehemently argued that no where it is mentioned in the amended Section 6c that the jurisdiction of the Sessions judge (judicial authority) to entertain appeals filed against the orders of the Deputy commissioner under Section 6a of the Act has been taken away and the same is given to the State Government concerned. He further submitted that the accused filed the appeal under Section 6c of the Act on 21-6-1982 and whereas the law amending section 6c came into force from 1-9-1982. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant- accused before the Sessions Judge was in accordance with law then prevailing. ( 5 ) SECTION 6c before amendment, reads as under:"6c - Appeal - (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation under Section 6a may, within one month from the date of communication to him, of such order, appeal to the judicial authority appointed by the State Government concernc'', 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. "the learned Counsel for the respondent stressed on the point that within one month from the date of communication of the order to be appealed against, the appellant (accused) has to file the appeal before the judicial authority concerned, and the judicial authority, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, pass any such order as it may. ( 6 ) SECTION 6c as amended under the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) act, 1981, reads as under :"6c - Appeal - (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation under Section 6a may, within one month from the date of the communication to him of such order, appeal to the State Government concerned, and the State Government, 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"therefore, by this amended Section what is mentioned is only that within one month from the date of the communication to the appellant of the order to be appealed against, shall file an appeal before the State government concerned. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, learned Counsel argued that the jurisdiction to entertain appeals by the Sessions Judge against the order passed under Section 6a of the Act, has not been taken away and he does not, by this amendment, cease to function as an appellate - authority under the Act for this purpose. 7. 1 In this connection reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in garikapati Veeraya v N. Subbiah Choudhry and ors. 7. 1 In this connection reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in garikapati Veeraya v N. Subbiah Choudhry and ors. (AIR 1957 S. C. 540) wherein their Lordships have observed that:" (1) The right of appeal is not a mere matter of procedure, but has a substantive right. (2) The right of appeal is a vested right and such a right to enter the superior court accrues to the litigation and exceeds as on and from the date the lis commences and although it may be actually exercised when the adverse judgment is pronounced, such right is to be governed by the law prevailing at the date of the institution of the suit or proceedings and not by law that prevails at the date of its decision or at the date of the filing of the appeal. (3) This vested right of appeal can be taken away only by a subsequent enactment if it so provides expressly or by necessary intendment and not otherwise. "7. 2 The learned Counsel also submits that the same view, as stated above, was taken by the Calcutta High Court in Sagar narayan Banerjee v The State of West Bengal, represented by The Collector, Birbhum (75 c. W. N. , 849 ). In this case also there was no specific enactment to take away the vested right of appeal in the judicial authority. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, in view of the above, it can be said that the appeal which was filed before the judicial authority under the law that was prevailing then had jurisdiction and that vested right of appeal in the judicial authority is not shown to be expressly or by necessary intendment is taken away by a subsequent enactment by giving retrospective effect. There is considerable force in this contention. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, under the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above the Judgment and Order passed by the Sessions Judge will have to be confirmed and the order of the Deputy commissioner is liable to be set aside. ( 10 ) IN the result, this Criminal Revision petition is dismissed. The Judgment and order dated 6-1-1987 passed by the Sessions judge, Tumkur, in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1982 are confirmed. Petition dismissed --- *** --- .