IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.967/2010 M/s Kamal Udyog and another Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : 16.8.2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Ajay Shukla for the accused petitioners Mr. Piyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor. ****** Heard learned counsel for the accused petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and carefully gone through the order impugned in this revision. Petitioners have challenged the order dated 30th July, 2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur, by which the learned Court below while allowing the appeal of the petitioners has set aside the order of confiscation, but did not allow release of the goods to the petitioner on the premises that the confiscated goods are the subject matter of separate trial for offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, for which the prosecution has already filed challan in the competent Court at Gangapur City and, therefore, the goods so confiscated have to be preserved for the purpose of evidence and cannot be released. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the goods in question consist of 587 quintals of sugar and 42 quintals of `Boora', totaling 629 quintals along with package material and, therefore, the Court below should have ordered release of goods on `supurdagi-nama'. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order passed by the Court below and contended that the petitioner who is an accused for offence u/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and is facing trial should have approached the Court below in accordance with the provisions of Section 451 Cr.P.C. On perusal of the order impugned in this petition, I find that while the order of confiscation has been setaside, but the fact remains that the petitioners are facing trial for offence under Sec. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. In any case, the confiscated goods are of such a nature which if not allowed to be released to the petitioners, it may decay or otherwise go waste and would be of no use. Learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly submitted that the petitioners have to go by procedure provided for the purpose and in that connection they should make an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. Before the trial court for release of goods on `supurdagi-nama', which the trial court shall consider and decide, keeping in view of the observations made by this court. With these observations, the revision petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. Thanvi