Order.- On nth April, 1974 the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, passed an order in the exercise of the power conferred on him by section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in Case No. CSD/4 COM/81 of 1973-74 confiscating 98 bags of paddy on the ground that the respondents contravened the provisions of Clause 3 of the Karnataka Paddy (Regulation of Inter-District Transport Control) Order, 1972. On appeal filed under section 6-C of the Act by the respondents against that order, the Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, by his judgment dated 8th May, 1974 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 24 of 1974 set aside the order of confiscation, but directed respondents 4 to 6 to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each; he further directed the said 98 bags of paddy to be returned to respondents 4 to 6 on their payment of the said fine. Hence this revision petition by the State. 2. The only question that was raised by the learned Government Pleader for consideration was whether the learned Sessions Judge in the exercise of the power conferred on him by section 6-C of the Act was correct in imposing fine, as aforementioned. Section 6-A of the Act which empowers the Collector of a District to pass an order of confiscation and section 6-C of the Act which confers power on the judicial authority-Sessions Judge-to deal with an appeal directed against an order of confiscation passed by a Collector under section 6-A of the Act, read thus: ”6-A.Confiscation of food grains, edible oil seeds and edible oils.- Where any food grains, edible oil seeds or edible oils are seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto, they may be produced without any unreasonable delay, before the Collector of the District or the Presidency Town in which the food grains, edible oil seeds or edible oils are seized and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such Order, the Collector, if satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order, may order confiscation of the food grains edible oilseeds or edible oils: * * * * 6-C: Appeal. — (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation under section 6-A may, within one month from the date of the communication to him of such order, appeal to any judicial authority appointed by the State ‘Government concerned 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 contention of the learned Government Pleader was that the provisions of section 6-C (1) of the Act did not empower a Sessions Judge to impose fine in the manner it was done in this case, and that the learned Sessions Judge while imposing a fine on respondents 4 to 6 acted in excess of the power conferred on him by section 6-C of the Act and illegally. 3. In my opinion the said contention is well founded. What section 6-A of the Act provides is that if the Collector is satisfied that there has been a contravention of any order made under section 3 of the Act he may order confiscation of food grains, edible oil seeds or edible oils. Under section 6-C of the Act an appeal is provided against such order of confiscation. The ambit of the power which a Sessions Judge can exercise while dealing with such an appeal is well defined by the words of that very section; it provides that the judicial authority (Sessions Judge) can pass such order as it may think fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against. It is therefore clear from the language of section 6-C of the Act that no power to impose fine is conferred on the Sessions Judge as is done in the present case. The words "such order as it may think fit" occurring in section 6-C (1) of the Act, in my opinion, cannot be read or understood as conferring such power, and they can only be understood as giving a discretion to deal with and dispose of such appeals in one of the ways namely confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against, and of course the discretion to be exercised should be judicial. To hold otherwise is to read into that section what is not warranted by its language. 4. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge while passing the order imposing fine on respondents 4. To hold otherwise is to read into that section what is not warranted by its language. 4. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge while passing the order imposing fine on respondents 4. to 6 it is obvious, has misconceived the scope of the power conferred on him by section 6-C (1) of the act, and under that section he could only confirm, modify or annul the order appealed against, whichever he thought fit in the circumstances of the case, and the words "as it may think fit" occurring in that section appear to have been used only in that context, and the aw does not contemplate such imposition of fine. The said order therefore being illegal has to be set aside, and the revision petition appears to have been filed mainly to demonstrate the illegality of that order, That respondents 4 to 6 were producers and the paddy in question was seized from them was not challenged by the learned Government Pleader. He is not also challenge the propriety or correctness of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge by which he set aside the order of confiscation on the ground that respondents 4 to 6 were producers and in view of the proviso to section 6-A of the Act the same could not be confiscated, and as mentioned earlier the only purpose in filing this revision petition was to show that the learned Sessions Judge had no power to impose fine in the manner he did. 5. In the result, for the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed, and the order of the learned Sessions Judge directing respondents 4 to 6 to pay a fine of Rs. 100 is set aside and the fine amount, if recovered shall be refunded to them.