ABDU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of some importance is raised in the Revision Petition. On the disposal of a charge of contravention of the provisions of an order made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Magistrate directed confiscation of the money realised as the value of the paddy seized. The accused in this case has been found guilty of an offence under Clause.3 of the Kerala Paddy and Rice (Declaration and Requisitioning of Stocks) Order, 1966. That is an order made under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The accused ought to have declared his stock. But he did not. The stock was seized by the Taluk Supply Officer and during the pendency of the case the stock was sold and the money was deposited in the Treasury. The case ended in conviction. The accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. There was a further direction in the judgment of the learned Magistrate. The paddy seized from the house of the accused had been distributed through ration shops and the price had been deposited in the Treasury. The Court ordered that the money so deposited will be confiscated to the Government. The petitioner did not succeed in the appeal filed against the conviction and sentence. This revision in confined to the direction in the order of the learned Magistrate concerning confiscation of the money.

(2.) S.7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 provides in clause (1)(b) that if any person contravenes any Order made under S.3 any property in respect of which such contravention is found shall be forfeited to the Government. The property in respect of which there has been contravention in this case is the paddy seized and according to counsel for the Revision Petition the relevant section enables only 'forfeiture' of such paddy to the Government and not its confiscation. Even assuming the order of confiscation is to be read as one of forfeiture, it is urged, money realised by sale of the property is not liable to forfeiture, for, the section enables the court to forfeit only property and not its equivalent. S.52 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for an order for disposal of property at the conclusion of the trial. Sub-s.(1) provides that when an inquiry or trial in any criminal court is concluded, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence. Though sub-s.(1) refers to the term 'property' and therefore it would appear that the property as such alone is liable to be destroyed, confiscated or delivered over, sub-s.(5) explains the meaning of the term 'property as not only that which was originally in the possession or under the control of any party but also any property to which the same may have been converted or with which that may have been exchanged or anything acquired by such conversion or exchange. Evidently that enables the court to treat as property within the meaning of sub-s.(1) not only the property which was originally in the possession of the party but also that to which it has been converted. Assuming that this section will enable an order of "confiscation" of money realised by sale by court of the property in respect of which any offence appears to have been committed whether the provision will have application to a case under the Essential Commodities Act is the question that engages the attention of this Court in this case.

(3.) The provisions of S.452 of the Code corresponding to S.517 of the repealed Code of 1898 is a general provision concerning disposal of property. S.7(1)(b) of the Essential Commodities Act is the provision made with reference to that Act and therefore evidently in regard to prosecution under that Act it is the said provision that should govern in the matter of forfeiture. To import the provision in S.517 despite S.7(1)(b) would not be justified as the provision in S.7(1)(b) would then be rendered a superfluity. Even otherwise it is a general rule of construction of statutes that a special provision will override the general provision and the provision in special enactments must have overriding application unless it be that the circumstances point to the need for application of the provisions of the general enactment in the particular case. In this background 1 do not think there is any justification for directing forfeiture of any money realised by the sale of property seized.