JUDGMENT S.R. Bhargava, J. - This revision is against an order for sale of 35 bags of rice and 10 bages of mustard, seized in connection with alleged contravention of Foodgrain Control Order, punishable under Sec. 3 read with Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The impugned order has been passed by a Deputy Collector describing himself as S.D.M. 2. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the SubDivisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Only Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction over the case of the Collector exercising power under Sec. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act could have jurisdiction to pass an order of sale. It is not disputed in this revision that the impugned order was passed on the application of revisionist. It was stated on behalf of the revisionist that the application was moved to the SubDivisional Magistrate by mistake. It was vehemently asserted on behalf of the revisionist that the SubDivisional I Magistrate was not authorised to exercise powers of the Collector under Sec. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. State was given sufficient opportunity to file affidavit and disclose whether the SubDivisional Magistrate concerned was authorised by the Collector to exercise powers under Sec. 6A of the Act. No such affidavit was forthcoming and it may be assumed for the sake of this revision that the SubDivisional Magistrate was not authorised by the Collector to exercise powers of Collector under the Act. It was argued by the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State that this revision against the impugned order does not lie under Sec. 397 Cr. P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the State explained that the Collector of a District is empowered under Sec. 6A (1) of the Act to order confiscation of the seized property. Under Sec. 5A (2) the Collector is empowered to order sale of the seized essential commodities. 4. Under Sec. 2 (ia) of the Act 'Collector' includes an Addl. Collector and such other officer not below the rank of SubDivisional Officer, as may be authorised by the Collector to perform the functions and exercise the powers of the Collector under the Act. In U.P. Deputy Collector is an Asstt. Collector, commonly known as SubDivisional Officer and an Executive Magistrate, when he exercises powers of Executive Magistrate with respect to a subdivision he is commonly known as SubDivisional Magistrate. In U.P. Deputy Collector is an Asstt. Collector, commonly known as SubDivisional Officer and an Executive Magistrate, when he exercises powers of Executive Magistrate with respect to a subdivision he is commonly known as SubDivisional Magistrate. While exercising powers of Executive Magistrate he is an inferior criminal court as explained in the Explanation of Sec. 397 (1) Cr. P.C. But exercising powers of an Asstt. Collector or Collector as SubDivisional Officer, he is not an inferior criminal court and his orders cannot be questioned in revision under Sec. 397 Cr. P.C. I have carefully considered definition of Collector under the Essential Commodities Act. It becoems obvious that the application for release was moved by the revisionist to a Deputy Collector assuming that he has powers of Collector under Sec. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. The application was, however, addressed to the SubDivisional Magistrate and in passing the impugned order the Deputy Collector described himself as SubDivisional Magistrate. 6. The description is only a misnomer. The impugned order has been passed by a Deputy Collector as SubDivisional Officer. Even though he was not empowered by the Collector to exercise the powers of the Collector under the Essential Commodities Act, the impugned order on the basis of misnomer in description of the SubDivisional Officer cannot be treated as an order of inferior criminal court. 7. In result, I agree with the contention raised on behalf of the State, I hold that revision against the impugned order is not maintainable under Sec. 397 Cr. P.C. Revision Dismissed.