ORDER : 1. This is a petn. in revision on behalf of the Customs and Excise Department, Madhya Bharat State, against the order of the See. J. who dismissing the appeal confirmed the order of the trial Ct. Darshanlal, Ramswaroop, Lachhman, Dharamji, Surendrapratap and Munirkhan were arrested on 17-3-1949 for possessing opium under S. 6, Opium Act Samvat 1980. On 18-3-1949, the Police Shivpuri released them on bail. One Dhannulal stood surety for the appearance of the accused and executed a security bond to the total amount of Rs. 4000. As the accused did not appear on 25-4-1949 and again on 2-5-1949 the Superintendent Customs and Excise Department, Dist. Shivpuri made a report under S. 58, Gwalior Excise Act, to the Mag., second class Shivpuri for the forfeiture of the security bond. The trial Ct. held that the appln. of the Customs Department was not entertainable as there is no procedure under S. 58, Excise Act, for the forfeiture of the security alone. The same order was confirmed by the Ses. J. Hence the Superintendent, Customs and Excise Department has filed this revision. 2. The first question for consideration in this case is whether an appln. in respect of offences under Opium Act can be made under S. 58, Excise Act. The learned Govt. Advocate who appeared on behalf of the petnr. admits that S. 58, Excise Act, is not applicable in the case of offences committed under the Opium Act. Gwalior Excise Act came into force in Samvat 1965. That Act contained provisions pertaining to opium and products of opium. But when the Opium Act came into force in Samvat 1980 all the provisions relating to opium and products of opium contained in the Excise Act were repealed by S. 2, Opium Act, (vide S. 2 and Appen. 1, Opium Act Samvat 1980). Henoe the provisions of Excise Act are no longer applicable to any of the offences committed under the Opium Act. It must, therefore, be held that Opium Act so far as it goes is self-contained. If it doss not provide for any procedure then the deficiency is to be supplied by general principles of law. The security was taken by the police under sub.s. (2) of S.19, Opium Act. The Opium Act contains no provisions with regard to the forfeiture of security. Hence in compliance with sub-s. (2) of S. 5, Cr. If it doss not provide for any procedure then the deficiency is to be supplied by general principles of law. The security was taken by the police under sub.s. (2) of S.19, Opium Act. The Opium Act contains no provisions with regard to the forfeiture of security. Hence in compliance with sub-s. (2) of S. 5, Cr. P. C. provisions of Cr. P. C. will govern the forfeiture of securities taken under the Opium Act (vide Emperor v. Mohd. Usman, A. I. R. (20) 1933 Sind 325 : (35 Cr. l. J. 129), In re Yerlagadda Venkanna, A. I. R. (12) 1925 Mad. 856 : (26 Cr. l. j. 1556) and Kusum Kumari v. Corporation of Calcutta, A. i. R. (24) 1937 Cal. 218 : (38 Cr. l. j. 632). As the forfeiture of securities taken under the Opium Act is to be governed by the provisions of Cr. P. C. the order passed by the lower Cts. cannot be sustained. 3. I, therefore, allow the petn. and setting aside the orders of the lower Cts. direct that the case be dealt with according to law.