JUDGMENT K.N. Seth, J. - Three hundred and eighteen bags of Bajra and Juwar were seized by the police on a suspicion that they were being smuggled to the State of Bihar. A case under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is under investigation by the police. With regard to the seized goods a report was made to the S.D.M. Mohammadabad, seeking direction for the disposal of the seized grain. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated June 20, 1973, directed that the grain be handed over to the Senior Marketing Inspector who shall sell the grain according to the Govt. rate and deposit the sale proceed in criminal deposit and the amount so deposited shall be disbursed according to the decision in the case under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. The revisionists challenged the correctness of this order before the A.D.M. (J), Ghazipur, who has made the reference to this Court for quashing the order of the learned Magistrate and for a direction that the grain be handed over to the revisionists against their furnishing necessary securities to produce the grain when required. The learned ADM (J) has assumed certain facts in his order under reference. He has proceeded on the basis that the goods admittedly seized from the possession of the revisionists and the revisionists were the owners of the goods in question. As mentioned earlier, the case is still at the stage of investigation. The report about the seizure of the grain does not indicate as to who were the owners of the goods from whose possession those goods had been seized. The revisionists for the first time before the ADM (J) came forward with the allegation that goods were seized from their possession and they were owners of the goods. That question has still to be decided and the learned ADM (J) is not justified in deciding the matter on the assumption that the allegations made by the revisionists are correct. The question as to the person from whose possession the goods were seized or the persons who were entitled to possession of the goods will be decided at the proper stage. 3. The question as to the person from whose possession the goods were seized or the persons who were entitled to possession of the goods will be decided at the proper stage. 3. The learned Magistrate was competent to pass an order with regard to the disposal of the seized grain under section 523 (1) of the., Criminal Procedure Code There was no material before him as to the person who was entitled to the possession thereof. At that stage the only course open to the Magistrate was to pass a suitable order respecting the disposal of the property Sand he, therefore, directed that the goods should be sold through the Marketing Inspector at the Govt. rate. The goods are admittedly at present in the custody of the Marketing Inspector. The goods may get damaged or deteriorate if they are stored for a long period. In my opinion the proper course would be that the learned Magistrate may give an opportunity to the revisionists to deposit the price of the entire grain at the market price in his court and in that event the grain may be delivered to them. 4. For the reasons given above the reference made by the learned ADM (J) is rejected. The revisionists may make an application before the learned Magistrate within three weeks from today for delivery of the goods to them. The learned Magistrate shall ascertain the market price of the grain on the date of the order and may deliver the goods to the revisionists if they deposit the entire market price of the goods in Court. If the revisionists fail to deposit the price of the grain within the time allowed by the learned Magistrate, the grain shall be sold through the Marketing Inspector at the Govt. rate. The record of the case shall be sent down immediately. A copy of this order may be delivered to the learned counsel for the revisionists on payment of usual charges within three days from today.