N. G. SHELAT, J. ( 1 ) (AFTER stating the facts His Lordships further stated:-)THAT takes me to the other Revision Application No. 299 of 1966 before this Court. Mr. Patels contention is that while the police held the power to seize such utensils in which the prohibited foodstuffs etc. were found at the time when the raid was carried out under sec. 6 of the Gujarat Guest Control Order while Passing an order of confiscation of the property under sec. 7 the Act it has necessarily to confine itself to that Provision. and as provided in sec. 7 (1) (b) of the Act all that could be forfeited to Government would be the property in respect of which the order has been contravened or such part thereof as to the Court may deem fit. According to him. the contravention is in respect of having prepared and distributed food to more than 25 persons at a time as contemplated under the provisions of this Order and therefore only that property viz. the prohibited foodstuffs can be confiscated. Rest of the property such as the utensils containing the same or other materials not prohibited by any law attached from that place as also from the house cannot be confiscated as done in this case. ( 2 ) IT would therefore be necessary to refer to the relevant part of sec. 7 (1) of the Act. It runs thus:-7 (1) If any person contravenes any order made under sec 3 (a) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (i) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (ii) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (b) any property in respect of which the order has been contravened or such part thereof as to the Court may seem fit shall be forfeited to the Government:- Provided that If the Court is of opinion that it is not necessary to direct forfeiture in respect of the whole or as the case may be any part of the property it may for reasons to the recorded refrain from doing so. Turning therefore to sec. 3 of the Order it provides for the restriction on preparation consumption and distribution of prohibited food-stuffs. Turning therefore to sec. 3 of the Order it provides for the restriction on preparation consumption and distribution of prohibited food-stuffs. Since the original accused No. 1 had distributed or served the prohibited foodstuffs to more than 25 persons at the ordinary social function such as the one than he held on that day he committed breach of the said older. If that Order is read with sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 which provides for the punishment for contravention any such order referred to above all that the Court can pass is an order for forfeiture of only that property or such part therefore in respect of which the order has been contravened. The term property has not been defined either in the Act; or in the Order. 1t has therefore to be given a natural meaning having regard to the subject-matter dealt with under the order read with sec. 7. As I said above the Order relates to contravention in respect of prohibited foodstuffs and for which the original accused No. 1 came to be held liable. That property therefore would be nothing more than the prohibited foodstuffs found or seized at the time of the raid carried by the police on the date of the offence. Therefore the prohibited foodstuffs which were found were liable to be forfeited to the Government. ( 3 ) AN attempt was however made by Mr. Nanavati to invite a reference to sec. 6 of the Order which provides for the power of entry search seizure etc. and urge that if the coverings or containers of those prohibited foodstuff could be seized and attached they can as well be forfeited-they being used in committing the said offence. Nanavati to invite a reference to sec. 6 of the Order which provides for the power of entry search seizure etc. and urge that if the coverings or containers of those prohibited foodstuff could be seized and attached they can as well be forfeited-they being used in committing the said offence. Sec. 6 runs thus ;6 (1) For the effective enforcement of the provisions of this Order any Revenue or Supply Officer not below the rank of Aval-Karkun or any Police Officer not below the rank of a Head Constable and any other person specially authorised by the State Government in this behalf may when he has reason to believe that a contravention of this Order has been is being or is about to be committed enter and search any premises interrogate any person and seize any articles including their coverings or containers in respect of which he has reason to believe that the contravention has been is being or is about to be committed. (2) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xxthis sec. 6 only relates to the powers of a police officer or any other officer contemplated therein for the purpose of making a search of the premises and seizing any articles including their covering or containers etc. That has been for the effective enforcement of the Order and at the same time prohibited articles of food would have to be seized or attached along with their containers or coverings as they cannot have kept with them for taking sway those prohibited foodstuffs. But that can not necessarily mean that the containers were also liable to be confiscated to Government under sec. 7 (1) (b) of the Essential Commodities Act. If that were intended to be so it would have specifically referred to any such articles including the coverings or containers as we find in sec. 6 of the Order. All that clause (b) of sec. 7 (1) of the Act refers to is to the property in respect of which the Order has been contravened. The property in respect of which the Order has been contravened would be the prohibited foodstuffs in the present case and much though such foodstuffs in the present case and much though such foodstuffs are bound to be in containers or some utensils the containers or utensils cannot be treated as property in respect of which the Order has been contravened. Thus while the seizure may be valid the confiscation cannot be as it was not property in respect of which the Order was contravened. ( 4 ) IT was then pointed out by Mr. Nanavati that the learned Magistrate has exercised his powers as required under sec. 517a (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and therefore the order passed by him cannot be called illegal. that sec. 517 (1) runs thus:-517 (1) Then an inquiry on a trial in any Criminal Court is concluded the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal by destruction confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or other of any property. . . . . regarding which any offence appears to have committed or which has been used for the commission of any offence. It is no doubt true that the Court would be justified under sec. 517a (1) of the Code to pass any such order of confiscation as the property such as the containers or coverings etc. can be covered in the second part or which has been used for the commission of any offence. But it is well settled rule of law that when a specific provision is made under the special Act as we have sec. 7 (lib) in the Essential Commodities Act 1955 that would prevail over the general provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code. They cannot be used to supplement or add something to the provision in the special Act. In the special Act the second part as we find in sec. 517 (1) of the Code viz. or which has been used for the commission of any offence is not there. Only the first part viz. the property in respect of which the offence appears to have been committed is there. The Legislature can therefore be said to have given powers to confiscate only such property in respect of which offence appeared to have been committed and not any other properties which have been used for commission of such an offence. The provisions of the Act read with those of the Order provide for a complete machinery and therefore the order has to be passed with regard to the muddamal property thereunder and not under sec. 518a of the Criminal Procedure Code. The provisions of the Act read with those of the Order provide for a complete machinery and therefore the order has to be passed with regard to the muddamal property thereunder and not under sec. 518a of the Criminal Procedure Code. In my opinion therefore the only property that could be forfeited to the Government would be the property in respect of which the Order has been contravened and that was no other property than the prohibited foodstuffs the breach in relation whereof is made punishable under sec. 7 (1) of the Act. The Courts below therefore were wrong in law in directing all the articles seized from that place to be confiscated to the Government. Order accordingly. .