JALIM CHAND SARAOGI Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application under the provisions of Section 439, Criminal P.C. directed against an order passed by the Magistrate, First Class, Golaghat, dated 8th October 1948, by which in addition to ordering confiscation of cloths, yarn and sugar, in respect of which offences Under Section 7 of Act XXIV [34] of 1946 (Central) were committed, he confiscated to Government the truck which was used in the commission of the offence.

(2.) IT is contended on behalf of the applicant that the order passed by the learned Magistrate purporting to be an order under the provisions -of Section 517, Criminal P.C., was in reality, an ' order passed in pursuance of Section 7 of Act xxiv [31] 1946, which is in these terms:

(3.) MR . Medhi for the petitioner contends that having regard to the restricted scope of Section 7, which does not empower a court trying a contravention under Act xxiv [24] of 1946 to forfeit to the State the vehicle in which property which is the subject -matter of the contravention, is carried, the general provisions of s, 617, Criminal P.C. cannot Berve to over -ride the specific provision contained in Section 7 of Act XXIV [24] of 1946. In support of his contention, he has referred us to two decisions of the Bombay High court reported in Hansraj v. Emperor, A. I. R 1944 Bom. 292 :, 1946 Cri. L. J. 482 and Baghunath Krishna v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1947 Bom. 839 :, I. L. R. (1946) Bom. 1063 and a decision of the Lahore High Court reported in Abdul Majid v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1945 Lab. 149 :, 1947 Cri.L.J. 130 . In Hansraj v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1944 Bom. 293 :, 16 Cri. L. J. 482 Divatia J. observed: