Order.- This office note is concerned with the number of certificates to be issued to the learned Public Prosecutor in respect of his fees. 2. A large number of criminal revision cases arising; under sections 6-A and 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act were disposed of under a common order by a learned single judge of this Court. Saying that all the cases were filed against separate orders of the lower appellate Court or the first Court, as the case may be, the learned Public Prosecutor claimed for a separate certificate in each of these cases. 3. However the facts of the case are; a large number of cases in contravention of the orders made under the Essential Commodities Act, were heard by the District Revenue Officer, who gave common number to all of them, because similar question arose though different persons were involved. They were all disposed of under a common order. Appeals were filed under section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act by the different persons involved and all of them were disposed of under a common order. Likewise different criminal revision cases were filed in this Court and all of them were disposed of under common order. 4. The office note points out that the question for consideration was the same in all the cases. Reference is made by the office note to the Standing Order No. 522(xi)(a)(i) which reads "In the following cases certificates will be issued as noted against them: "(a) In cases where there is a single trial or inquiry in the lower Court whatever the number of charges or accused persons or number of petitions filed in the High Court-when disposed of on the same occasion by common or separate order in the High Court-one certificate." 5. In order to attract the provisions of clause (a) two ingredients must exist. There should be a single trial or inquiry in the lower Court and the number of charges or accused persons or the number of petitions filed in the High Court is immaterial. The second ingredient is that all the petitions filed in the High Court should be disposed of on the same occasion by common or separate orders. If these two ingredients exist one certificate alone has to be issued to the Public Prosecutor. 6. The second ingredient is that all the petitions filed in the High Court should be disposed of on the same occasion by common or separate orders. If these two ingredients exist one certificate alone has to be issued to the Public Prosecutor. 6. Before the preliminary authority, i.e., the District Revenue Officer, there was a single inquiry into all these cases of confiscation, though the persons concerned were different. That there was a common inquiry is not in dispute. Likewise there is also no doubt about the fact that all these criminal revision cases were disposed of by the High Court by a common order. It is thus manifest that the two ingredients of clause (a) of Standing Order No. 522 (xi)(a)(i) are satisfied. 7. However, Dr. Bhimaraju, learned Public Prosecutor, contends that what took place before the District Revenue Officer is not in the nature of an inquiry and that it cannot be said that the persons who are interested in the property, were accused persons. I do not think that the learned Public Prosecutor is right in his submissions. The expression "inquity"used in clause (a) is capable of a very wide and broad meaning. When a matter is brought before a Court or a quasi-judicial authority, it will have to inquire into the merits or demerits, of the matter that was brought before it. Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, enables the authority to confiscate goods. The power of confiscation should be exercised only if the author is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order. Then section 6-B of the Act provides for the procedure for the confiscation proceedings. It says that no order confiscating a commodity can be made unless the owner or the person from whom it is seized: (a) is given a notice in writing informing the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the commodity, (b) is given an opportunity for making representation in writing within such reasonable time a? may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation and further is also given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. 8. Sections 6-A and 6-B make it perfectly clear that the confiscation can be made only after an inquiry. may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation and further is also given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. 8. Sections 6-A and 6-B make it perfectly clear that the confiscation can be made only after an inquiry. The District Revenue Officer, before whom all these matters come up, can pass an appropriate order either confiscating or declining to confiscate the goods that were seized, only after holding an inquiry. In other words, he could pass the order only after giving an opportunity to the owner of the goods or the person from whom they have been seized, to make his representation and after hearing him. I fail to see how all this is not an inquiry. 9. The next argument of the learned Public Prosecutor is that these persons to whom opportunity is given, cannot be called, "accused persons". The expression "accused persons’‘ used in clause (a) has a wide amplitude. Any person, who is accused of contravention of law, is an accused person within the meaning of this clause. As already noticed, the sections 6-A and 6-B proceeding for confiscation starts only when it is found that there has been a contravention of the law. In other words the persons concerned are accused of having contravened the law. 10. I may also refer to rule 38 of the Andhra Pradesh Law Officers (Recruitment, Conditions of Services and Remuneration) Rules, 1967. The learned Public Prosecutor relies on clause (i) of rule 38, which says that fees payable to the Public Prosecutor is Rs. 38 for appearance in each Criminal case. So he argues that he is entitled to a certificate in each one of the Criminal Revision Cases disposed of in a common order. This contention ignores the proviso to rule 38(4), which says that "Provided that appeals presented by several accused persons against the same judgment, whether such appeals are lodged jointly or separately, are treated as a single case for purposes of calculating the fees." 11. These criminal revision cases come within the scope of this proviso. Though the criminal revision cases have been presented by several persons, they are against the same judgment of the District Revenue Officer and Appellate Authority. It is immaterial whether they are dealt with jointly or separately and the fact remains that throughout they have been treated as a single unit or single case. 12. Though the criminal revision cases have been presented by several persons, they are against the same judgment of the District Revenue Officer and Appellate Authority. It is immaterial whether they are dealt with jointly or separately and the fact remains that throughout they have been treated as a single unit or single case. 12. For these reasons I am satisfied that clause (a) of standing order 522(XI)(a)(i) applies to the facts of the case. Consequently the Public Prosecutor is entitled only to one certificate. The reference is ordered accordingly.