DEPUTY COMMR CHITRADURGA Vs. GANGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 11-4-1974, the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, passed an order in the exercise of the power conferred on him by S.6A of thei Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in Case No. CSD 4 COM 81/1973-74, confiscating 98 bags of paddy on the ground that the, respondents contravened the provisions of Cl(3) of the Karnataka Paddy (Regulation of Inter-Dist Transport) Control Order, 1972. On appeal filed under S.6C of the Act by the respondents against that order, the Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, by his judgment dl. 8-5-1974 passed in CrlMA.24/1974, 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 Govt Pleader for consideration was whether the learned Sessions Judge in the exercise of the power conferred on him by S.6C of the Act was correct in imposing fine, as aforementioned. S.6A of the Act which empowers the Collector of a Dist to pass an order of confiscation, and S.6C of the Act which confers power on the Judicial Authority-Session Judge-to deal with an appeal directed against an order of confiscation passed by a Collector under S.6A of the Act, read thus :

(3.) In my opinion, the said contention is well-founded. What S.6A of the Act provides is that if the Collector is satisfied that there has been a contravention of any order made under S.3 of the Act he may order confiscation of foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils. Under Section 6C of the Act an appeal is provided against such order of confiscation. The ambit of the power which a Session 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 an order as it may think fit, confirming, modifying, or annulling the order appealed against It is therefore clear from the language of S.6C 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 S 6C(1) of the Act, in my opinion, cannot be read of understood as conferring such power, and they pan only be understood as plying a discretion to deal with and dispose of such appeals in one of the ways namely, confirming, modifyng 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.