# Revisionist v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 753 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2002-10-09 - **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1476 of 2002 - **Bench:** Sushil Harkauli - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-39974 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote U.P. Excise Act, 1910- Section 72 and Criminal Procedure Code 1973- section 397/401-A criminal Revision will lie only against orders passed by "Subordinate Criminal Courts" under the Code of Criminal Procedure- the District Judge while acting as the Appellate authority under U.P. Excise Act is not a "Criminal Court" and he is not exercising powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure while deciding the appeal- In absence of either of these two things criminal revision will not be maintainable against the order passed under section 72(7) of U.P. Excise Act, 1910. (Held in para 8). Case Laws referred: AIR 1978 SC 1 Thus I hold that Criminal Revision is not maintainable against such an order. ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 3 All] Sahab Singh V. State of U.P. 753 Muslim University Vs. Mansoor Ali reported in AIR 2000 SC-2783. 15. He cannot have any legal right or even lien on the post. In so far as the question of violation of principle of natural justice, suffice it to say these principles are not straightjacket formula applicable in all situations. 16. In case of temporary employee the employer has right to terminate the services of such employee according to the terms of contract of service instead of holding enquiry even if the employee had been charged with misconduct. The petitioner did not submit proof of passing Intermediate examination, hence his services were liable to be terminated on that ground according to the terms of his appointment. He also did not give any reply to the notice of show cause hence it was not necessary to hold any enquiry. 17. Thus, in the circumstances of this case no principles of natural justice have been violated. In any case, termination of service is not liable to be interfered in the circumstances of this case and it is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. For the reasons stated above, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. --------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 9.10.2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUSHIL HARKAULI, J. Criminal Revision No. 1476 of 2002 Sahab Singh ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Revisionist: Sri Ajay Kumar Counsel for the Opposite Party: S.C. U.P. Excise Act, 1910- Section 72 and Criminal Procedure Code 1973- section 397/401-A criminal Revision will lie only against orders passed by "Subordinate Criminal Courts" under the Code of Criminal Procedure- the District Judge while acting as the Appellate authority under U.P. Excise Act is not a "Criminal Court" and he is not exercising powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure while deciding the appeal- In absence of either of these two things criminal revision will not be maintainable against the order passed under section 72(7) of U.P. Excise Act, 1910. (Held in para 8). Case Laws referred: AIR 1978 SC 1 Thus I hold that Criminal Revision is not maintainable against such an order. (Delivered by Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.) 1. Section 72 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910 provides for confiscation proceedings. The confiscation order can be passed by the Collector. Sub-section (7) of Section 72 of the Act provides that against the order of confiscation appeal http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002 lies to such judicial authority as may be appointed in that behalf by the State Government. The State Government has appointed the "District Judge" to hear such appeals. 2. In the present case the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the District Judge which has been decided by the impugned order. Against the order of District Judge the petitioner has preferred this Criminal revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. 3. A criminal revision will lie only against orders passed by "subordinate Criminal Courts" under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question to be answered for considering the maintainability of this Criminal revision, therefore, is whether the District Judge, passing an order in appeal under section 72(7) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910, is exercising powers of working under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or not. There is nothing in the Act or the Rules to indicate that the procedure to be followed by the appellate authority will be the same as prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. There is a clear difference between "District Judge" and the "Sessions Judge". The decision of Supreme Court in the case of Thakur Das Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1978 SC 1, which has held that Criminal revision is maintainable against the order of Sessions Judge passed as the appellate authority under section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is based upon the fact that Judicial Authority appointed under section 6 C was the "Sessions Judge". The use of the words "Sessions Judge" by the Government itself indicated that the Judicial Officer exercising power of Code of Criminal Procedure, has been nominated as the appellate authority. 5. The Code of Criminal Procedure uses the words "Sessions Judge" but instead of those words in the Notification made by the Government under U.P. Excise Act the "District Judge" has been constituted the appellate authority. 6. Thus I see no reason to hold either that the District Judge while acting as the Appellate authority under U.P. Excise Act is a "Criminal Court" or that he is not exercising powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure while deciding the appeal. In absence of either of these two things criminal revision will not be maintainable against the order passed under section 72 (7) of U.P. Excise Act, 1910. 7. Certain decisions which have been cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist have been considered by me. In all of them it has been assumed that criminal revision lies. This question has not been raised or decided as to whether criminal revision is maintainable under Cr.P.C. against an order passed under section 72 (7) of the U.P. Excise Act. 8. Thus I hold that Criminal revision is not maintainable against such an order. 9. At this stage learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he wants to withdraw this criminal revision to avail such remedy as may be available to him. This criminal revision is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 3 All] Mohan Singh V. State of U.P. and others 755 10. Let a copy of this order be issued to learned counsel for the applicant on payment of usual charges within three days. Certified copy of the impugned order may also be returned if demanded by counsel upon furnishing of a typed copy of the same. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 4.10.2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28777 of 1994 Mohan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.D. Tripathi Sri M.M. Siddiqui Sri J.K. Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Constitution of India, Article 226- Service Law- Termination order- petitioner was appointed for period of three years on fixed salary-continued even after expiry of the period-strict in accordance with the terms of appointment termination order passed after giving one month prior salary-held- proper- in absence of seniority list- question regarding working of juniors to the petitioner can not be accepted-even the petitioner can approach before Industrial Tribunal- petition dismissed. Held- Para 5 The standing counsel has contended that the services of part time tube well operators are not transferable. He submits that the service of the petitioner has been terminated according to the terms and conditions contained in the letter of appointment. He further contends that since the petitioner was not a regular full time tube well operator he was not entitled to salary of full time tube well operator. Lastly, it has been submitted that since the petitioner's appointment was on a particular tube well there is no question of seniority or juniority. Since the tube well operators are appointed against a particular tube well no question of seniority involved in the case. (Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition arises out of the alleged illegal termination of the petitioner by respondent no. 2 from the post of Tube-well operator by the impugned order, dated 17.6.1994. 3. The petitioner was appointed as part-time Tube-well operator at Tube-well No. 22, at Kirawali, district Agra on fixed monthly salary of Rs.299/- by order, dated 22.7.1988. The terms and conditions of petitioner's appointment as given in his aforesaid appointment order are as under:- "1%& budh fu;qfDr iw.kZr% vLFkk;h gS rFkk dk;Z lurks"ktud ugha ik;s tkus ij ,d ekg dks uksfVl nsdj fdlh Hkh le; lsok,a lekIr dh tk ldrh gSaA 2%& ;g fu;qfDr vko';drkuqlkj mideZ ds fy, gh gksxh dk;Z lurks"ktud ik;s tkus ij gh budh fu;qfDr ij iqu% fopkj fd;k tk,xk A 3%& dk;Z Hkkj xzg.k djus dk dksbZ ;k+=k HkRrk ns; ugha gksxk A"