Narain, J. By this petition the petitioner has prayed for release of 599 bags of fertilizer seized from the godowns of the petitioner which by order dated the 28th September, 1974 the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Hilsa at Biharsharif has made over to the Prakhand Krishi Padadhikari, Hilsa for sale on permits at Government rate and the sale proceeds of which are to be deposited in the Government treasury. 2. Raid was made on the 27th of August, 1974 in the godowns of the petitioner and others and as a result thereof 1050 bags of fertilizer were seized. The seizure was made from the godowns set out below: (1) Sheo Nandan Gope and Ganga Gope's house 440-bags of Sona Calcium Ammonium Nitrate. (2) Shyam Bihari Lal's house-426 bags of Sona Calcium Ammonium Nitrate and 68 bags of Bokaro Ammonium Sulphate. (3) Jhuri Sao's house-62 bags of Bokaro Ammonium Sulphate. (4) Hari Kishan Lal's house-33 bags of Single Super Phosphate. (5) Shyam Sudar Das's house-21 bags of Ammonium Sulphate Nitrate. On looking into the stock register bags which were found in excess and of which no entry was made in the stock register were as follows: (1) 426 bags of Sona Nitrate Calcium Ammonium. (2) 33 bags of Single Super Phosphate. (3) 11 bags of Ammonium Sulphate Nitrate. During the raid it was noticed that 11 out of 21 bags of Ammonium Sulphate Nitrate recovered from the house of Shyam Sunder Das had been sold to different persons on the basis of permits issued by the authorities but delivery for the same had not been taken by the customers and these customers prayed before the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate for their release, who directed the police to verify their claims. It is the petitioner's case that so far as 426 bags of Calcium Ammonium Nitrate is concerned, due intimation of their receipt had already been given to the authority concerned by letter dated the 12th July, 1974 (Vide Annexure-2) and a prayer was made for necessary permission for' their distribution. At a meeting held on the 28th of August, 1974 the Block Agriculture Sub-Committee made the distribution of those 426 bags and sent necessary information to the persons concerned (Vide Annexure 2/1 ). On the above facts the petitioner has prayed for release of the following bags and for reasons set out below: 426 bags of Ammonium Calcium Nitrate because of Annexures-2 and 2/1. On the above facts the petitioner has prayed for release of the following bags and for reasons set out below: 426 bags of Ammonium Calcium Nitrate because of Annexures-2 and 2/1. 68 bags of Bokaro Ammonium Sulphate because they were not found in excess according to the register. 62 bags of Bokaro Ammonium Sulphate because of the above reasons. 33 bags of single super phosphate because it is not controlled commodity as will appear from Government order issued in Memo No. 241 dated the 3rd April, 1974, of the Department of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry (Agriculture), Bihar, Patna. 10 out of 21 bags because they were not in excess and 11 bags had already been sold to the customers for which necessary enquiry had been ordered by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate. 3. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the release of 68 bags, 62 bags and 10 bags referred to above because they are not shown as excess in the stock register but he has raised objection to the release of the other two items, namely, 426 bags and 33 bags. In this connection, the learned counsel invited my attention to column 3 of Annexure 2/1 and argued that the allotment as was done by the Sub-committee on the 28th of August, 1974 was of Urea and not of Calcium Ammonium Nitrate as submitted for the petitioner. The argument is not tenable since the information that the petitioner gave to the authority concerned by letter dated the 12th July, 1974 (Vide Annexre-2) was not in respect of Urea but in respect of Calcium Ammonium Nitrate and allotment thereof has been made by column 2 of Annexure-2/1 and not as indicated in column no. 3 of Annexure 2/1. 4. So far as 33 bags of Single Super Phosphate is concerned, it is difficult for me to order its release in favour of the petitioner by virtue 'of Government Memo No. 241 dated 3rd April, 1974. The reason is that by the above memo the Government allowed free sale of "existing stock of Phosphate Potash and mixture" and not of Single Super Phosphate. Single Super Phosphate is included in the schedule appended to the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957. The reason is that by the above memo the Government allowed free sale of "existing stock of Phosphate Potash and mixture" and not of Single Super Phosphate. Single Super Phosphate is included in the schedule appended to the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957. Therefore, claim of the petitioner can be entertained only in respect of 426 bags of Calcium Ammonium Nitrate, 68 bags of Bokaro Ammonium Sulphate, 62 bags of Bokaro Ammonium Sulphate and 10 bags of Ammonium Sulphate Nitrate. 5. The point for consideration is whether the impugned order which is an interlocutory order as contemplated by section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can and should be inferred with. In my opinion, the impugned order so far as the aforesaid bags are concerned, is without jurisdiction and that being so, this court, in its revisional jurisdiction, can interfere with such an order. Relevant power of seizure will be found in section 3 (1) (2) (j) (i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Sub-section (1) lays down that for securing equitable distribution and availability of essential commodities at fair price an order may issue. Sub-section (2) (j) (i) says that without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) an order made thereunder may provide for seizure by a person authorised of "any article in respect of which such person has reason to believe that contravention of order has been, is being or is about to be committed." The Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. It will be noticed that entry had not been made in the stock register of the aforesaid bags only. Therefore, it is in respect of these bags that contravention of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 has taken place and as such it is these bags which fall within the mischief of section 3 (2) (j) (i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 6. The view that I have taken above finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Motibhai Fulabhai Patel & Co. Vs. R. Prasad, Collector of Central Excise, Baroda and others AIR 1970 SC 829 . This was a case relating to confiscation in terms of Rule 40 of the Central Excise Rules. The view that I have taken above finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Motibhai Fulabhai Patel & Co. Vs. R. Prasad, Collector of Central Excise, Baroda and others AIR 1970 SC 829 . This was a case relating to confiscation in terms of Rule 40 of the Central Excise Rules. It was observed there that- "Rule 40 relates to forfeiture and is a penal provision its scope cannot be extended by reading into its words which are not there. Rule 40 permits the Central Excise authorities to confiscate only those good on which duty has not been paid. It is not permissible for the collector to confiscate the entire tobacco mixture." For the above reasons I direct that the aforesaid 426 bags shall be released to the petitioner on furnishing sufficient security, which may not be in cash, to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa at Biharsarif. Distribution and sale thereof shall be according to the decision dated the 28th of August, 1974 of the Block Agricultural Sub-committee (Vide Annexure-2). 68 bags of Bokaro Ammonium Sulphate recovered from the house of Shyam Bihari Lal and 62 bags of Bokaro Ammonium Sulphate recovered from the house of Jhuri Sao and 10 bags of Ammonium Sulphate Nitrate recovered from the house of Shyam Sundar Das shall be released without any security. Fertilizers in these bags shall be sold and distributed on permits issued by the Block Development Officer. As submitted by the learned counsel for the State this order will not guarantee the genuineness or otherwise of the stock register of the petitioner which may be a matter for inquiry at the trial stage. 6. With the above observation the application is allowed. Application allowed.