Judgment :- 1. This petition is to quash the order of the District Magistrate, Kottayam disallowing a prayer of the petitioner to release 178 standard paras of paddy which had been produced before the court. The Check Post Inspector, Puthuppally stopped this paddy while it was being removed to Ayimanam Village. The Kottayam East Police took charge of the paddy and registered a case for contravention of the provisions of S.3 of the Kerala (Rice Regulation of Movement) Third Order, 1965 (shortly stated the 0.1965) and produced the same in court. According to the petitioner it was seed paddy that was taken, that both Puthuppally village and Ayimanam Village come within one and the same specified area and it is only removal from one specified area to another that would constitute an offence and as it is clear that no offence is committed the paddy cannot be seized from him and that it was seed paddy that was being taken and unless it is released he will not be able to carry on his cultivation this year. The request was turned down by the District Magistrate who ordered the District Supply Officer, Kottayam to take charge of the paddy and deposit the sale proceeds in court. 2. Under S.516 A when any property regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, is produced before any criminal court, the court may take such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or if it is expedient so to do the court may order the property to be sold. That no doubt rests on the discretion of the court and normally this court cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the court. But what is contended is that as it is clear that no offence is committed in this particular case the property cannot be seized. S. 3 of the 0.1965 reads: "No person shall move or attempt to move or abet the movement of rice from any place within a specified area to a place outside that area or from one specified area to another specified area except under and in accordance with a permit issued by the Collector of the concerned district or any other officer authorised by him in his behalf." 3. That section prohibits the movement of rice which according to the definition includes paddy also from any place within a specified area to a place outside the area. What is specified area has been defined in S.2 (b). It reads: "(b) 'specified area' means each of the areas mentioned in items (a) to (g) in schedule I to this Order." 4. So what we find is that the Government has constituted 7 specified areas. The Kuttanad area in Alleppey and Kottayam districts is included into one specified area and the various villages in that area have been mentioned. On a reading of the section, I find myself unable to agree with the contention of the learned State Prosecutor that each of these villages should be considered as a separate specified area, and therefore the removal of paddy from one of the villages mentioned in cl. (g) to another village in cl. (g) would be contravention of S.3. It is the removal from one specified area to another specified area that is stated to be an offence. Prima facie, therefore, no offence can be said to have been committed in this case and the paddy has to be returned to the petitioner. I, therefore, set aside the order of the learned District Magistrate and order that the paddy be delivered to the petitioner. The revision petition is allowed. Allowed.