JUDGEMENT 1. The only point urged by Shri Kaswani, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Sessions Judge, Gwalior, had no jurisdiction to remand the case to the original authority, namely, the Collector, Gwalior, for deciding the case afresh after serving notice on the petitioner. It is argued that the Sessions Judge does not act as a Criminal Court while deciding a case under S.6-C of the Essential Commodities Act. In my opinion, the petitioner is on the horns of a dilemma. If the Sessions Judge is taken to be not a Criminal Court exercising powers under S.6-C of the said Act, then this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition against the order of the Sessions Judge, and on that ground the revision petition is liable to be dismissed as incompetent. 2. In this connection I may refer to a Bench decision of this Court reported in 1975 M.P.L.J. 498 (Sitaram Deokishan Heda v. State of M.P.), wherein it was held that no revision application under S.439 Cr. P.C. lies against an order of confiscation passed under S.6-C (1) of the Essential Commodities Act by the District and Sessions Judge appointed as Judicial authority under the Act. It was observed that the District Judge in such a case acts as persona designata of the State Government. 3. It would not be out of place to mention here, that a different view was taken in 1975 Cr. L.J. 144 (Andh Pra) (FB) (Public Prosecutor A.P. v. L. Ramayya), where the learned Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court have held that the District and Sessions Judge acting as an appellate authority under S.6-C of the Essential Commodities Act in confiscation proceedings is a Court and its orders are revisable. This ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court does not seem to have been brought to the notice of the learned Judges of this Court who decided Sitaram's case (supra) (1975 MP LJ 498). 4. However, I may observe that the Judicial Authority exercising powers of the appellate Court under S.6-C of the Essential Commodities Act was competent to remand the case. The learned counsel lays emphasis on the words "pass such an order, as it may think, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against," occurring in S.6-C of the Essential Commodities Act. 4. However, I may observe that the Judicial Authority exercising powers of the appellate Court under S.6-C of the Essential Commodities Act was competent to remand the case. The learned counsel lays emphasis on the words "pass such an order, as it may think, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against," occurring in S.6-C of the Essential Commodities Act. The learned counsel seems to lay too much emphasis on the words "confirming, modifying or annulling". His submission is that these words exclude the power of remand. But this argument ignores the preceding words "such order, as it may think fit.........". It may be pointed out that the words "confirming, modifying or annulling" are only illustrative and not exhaustive. In that view also no interference is called for with the impugned order. 5. Thus I hold that this revision petition is incompetent on the view taken by this Court in Sitaram's case (supra) 1975 MPLJ 498 and the order does not call for interference. 6. With these observations, this revision petition is dismissed summarily. Revision dismissed.