ORDER Mulla, J. - This is an application in revision by one Chotte who has been convicted by a First Class Magistrate in a summary trial of an offence under Rule 81 (4) of the Defence of India Rules for having contravened certain provisions of an order made by the District Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar on 8th September 1945, relating to Khandsari sugar. The prosecution case was that the applicant had contravened the following four provisions of the said order of the District Magistrate: (2) That every dealer, manufacturer and any person dealing otherwise in Khandsari sugar shall get himself registered in the Supply Office, Muzafiarnagar, within one month from the date of this order.....(4) That every person registered under Clause 2 shall submit a monthly return in the following form to the District Supply officer which should reach his office not later than the 3rd of the succeeding month. (5) That every registered Khandsari dealer, manufacturer or person dealing otherwise shall maintain a stock register in the form given below up to date with correct entries. (6) That every registered Khandsari dealer shall maintain a daily register in the following form with up-to-date correct entries. The trial being summary, the only record available in the case is the judgment of the learned trying Magistrate and it is from that judgment that I have gathered the fact that the applicant was charged with having contravened the above-mentioned four provisions of the District Magistrate's order, dated 8th September 1945. Now, a moment's consideration will show that the prosecution was a contradiction in terms inasmuch as if the applicant was a person who had not got himself registered in the Supply Office, Muzaffarnagar, as required by provision No. (2) cited above, then the 4th provision referred to above could not possibly apply to him because it is applicable only to a person registered, under clause (2)." The language of the other two provisions is not quite clear but they seem also to be applicable only to registered Khandsari dealers or manufacturers, for it is obvious that no rule could be made applicable to a person who had not been registered and had not obtained a licence. 2. 2. At the request of the Crown Prosecutor the learned Magistrate held a summary trial and the defence raised by the applicant was that he bad already applied for a licence and had been told by the Supply Department that he would soon get it by post. He further alleged that he had manufactured sugar for the purposes of private consumption on the occasion of marriage in his family. The prosecution proved by oral evidence that the applicant's house was raided on 24th March 1946, by a police officer with the result that the following articles were recovered (1) 24 maunds of ready made Khandsari sugar, (2) 10 maunds sugar in Adda, (3) 18 maunds Rab, (4) 48 jars of Rab and 32 maunds of Sheera including other accessories. The applicant was convicted and the learned trying Magistrate imposed upon him a fine of Rs. 100 and it was further ordered that all the items of property referred to above shall be forfeited to the Crown and their sale proceeds shall be deposited in the treasury. 3. From this conviction, the applicant appealed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut at Muzaffarnagar. At the hearing of the appeal it was urged on behalf of the Crown that the appeal was incompetent under S. 414, Cr. P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the contention was sound and he, therefore, allowed it to prevail with the result that the applicant's appeal was summarily dismissed. It appears that the applicant then put in a petition in revision upon which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has made a reference to this Court recommending for various reasons given by him that the conviction and sentence of the applicant be set aside. The reference has naturally been connected with the application in revision. 4. It is obvious that it would not be necessary for me to pass any order upon the reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge if it is found that the application in revision is well founded and must prevail. The reference has naturally been connected with the application in revision. 4. It is obvious that it would not be necessary for me to pass any order upon the reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge if it is found that the application in revision is well founded and must prevail. I have considered that application very carefully and have heard learned counsel for the Crown and I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in law in holding that the appeal made to him by the applicant from his conviction in the summary trial held by a First Class Magistrate was not competent in view of S. 414, Cr. P.C. Section 414, Criminal P.C. runs as follows: Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained there shall be no appeal by a convicted person in any case tried summarily in which a Magistrate empowered to act under S. 260 passes a sentence of fine not exceeding two hundred rupees only. It may be noted here that a general right of appeal is given by S. 408, Cr. P.C. to any person convicted on a trial held by an Assistant Sessions Judge, a District Magistrate or other Magistrate of the First Class. Now S. 414 places some restrictions on that general right. Being a provision of a restrictive character, it must be strictly, construed as far as possible in favour of the subject as against the Crown. The bar laid down in S. 414 must be applied only to a case which comes clearly within its four corners, that is, to a case in which a Magistrate empowered to act under S. 260 passes a sentence of fine not exceeding two hundred rupees only. Any case in which a Magistrate empowered to act render S. 260 passes a sentence which is not merely one of fine not exceeding two hundred rupees only but also a sentence of some other character, the bar laid down by S. 414, Cr. P.C. cannot apply. The simple question in the present case, therefore, is whether the order of forfeiture of property passed by the trying Magistrate is or is not a part of the sentence imposed upon the applicant. It may be pointed out here that the property confiscated in the present case was much more than Rs. 1,000 in value and under S. 32, Cr. It may be pointed out here that the property confiscated in the present case was much more than Rs. 1,000 in value and under S. 32, Cr. P.C. a Magistrate of the First Class cannot impose a fine exceeding one thousand rupees. The order of forfeiture, however, is justified by Rule 81 (4) of the Defence of India Rules which runs as follows: If any person contravenes any order made under this Rule, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and if the order so provides any Court trying such contravention may direct that any property in respect of which the Court is satisfied that the Order has been contravened shall be forfeited to His Majesty. Now, we find that the order of the District Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar dated 8-9-1945, contained the following provision at the end: Any person contravening any of the provisions of this order shall be liable to punishment under sub-r. (4) of R. 81, Defence of India Rules with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both and without prejudice to any other punishments to which he may be liable, any Court trying the offence shall order that the material together with its packages, if any, in respect of which the Court is satisfied that the offence has been committed be forfeited to His Majesty unless for reasons to be recorded in writing the Court is of opinion that the direction should not be made in respect of the whole or a part of the property. 5. It is clear that the order made by the District Magistrate prescribes forfeiture as one of the modes of punishment and the same conclusion is clearly deducible from the language of R. 81 (4), Defence of India Rules. It must, therefore, be held that in the present case the trying Magistrate has imposed upon the applicant not merely a fine of Rs. 100 but a further punishment of forfeiture of certain property belonging to him. The case is, therefore, outside the ambit of S. 414, Criminal P.C. and I think it would be wrong in these circumstances to hold that the applicant had no right of appeal. 6. 100 but a further punishment of forfeiture of certain property belonging to him. The case is, therefore, outside the ambit of S. 414, Criminal P.C. and I think it would be wrong in these circumstances to hold that the applicant had no right of appeal. 6. The result, therefore, is that I allow the application in revision made by Chhota and direct that the appeal filed by him in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Muzaffarnagar shall be heard and disposed of in accordance with the law. It is not necessary for me to pass any order upon the reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, for it would be open to the learned Judge himself upon hearing the appeal to pass any order demanded by law and justice.