JUDGMENT 1. - In pursuance of the Prevention of Rajasthan Food Grains (Prevention of Hoardings) Order, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as 'The Order') a compaign for the checking of the hoarding of food grains was arranged by the Collector, Barmer. The Naib Tehsildar, Barmer sealed the godown of one Keshrimal on March 14, 1973 on the suspicion that there was bajra in excess of the permitted quantity. It was complained that in the intervening night of 15th and 16th March, 1973 Keshrimal with the help of his sons and relatives viz. Tejumal, Nemichand, Birdhi Chand, Hamir Chand and Chunni Lal illegally took-out bags of bajra from the sealed godown and placed them at the house of Nemichand. On March 31, 1973 the godown was checked and 41 bags of bajra were found missing from the stock. The act of Keshri Mai and others was considered to be contravention of the Older as well as an offence under Sections 447 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The case against them all for the aforesaid offences was registered. During the course of investigation 147 bags of bajra were recovered from the present petitioners and the investigating authority being of the opinion that the bajra so seized was connected with the alleged offences committed by Keshri Mai and his companions under the aforesaid provisions, charge-sheet was filed against them for the aforesaid offences in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer. During the course of trial Keshri Mai died and proceedings against him were dropped. By the judgment dated March 28, 1973 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted Hamir Chand. He however held Teju Mai, Chunni Lal, Nemi Chand and Birdhi Chand guilty for the offence under Sections 424 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them each to the one month's simple rigorous imprisonment. The 147 bags of bajra seized from the possession of the present petitioners were auctioned. The auction amount Rs. 8559/- was ordered to be confiscated. The claim petition of the petitioners in connection with the bajra or the money were rejected. The four accused of that case preferred an appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, Balotra. The appeal was allowed by the judgment dated July 22, 1978 and all of them were acquitted. 2. The auction amount Rs. 8559/- was ordered to be confiscated. The claim petition of the petitioners in connection with the bajra or the money were rejected. The four accused of that case preferred an appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, Balotra. The appeal was allowed by the judgment dated July 22, 1978 and all of them were acquitted. 2. In dissatisfaction of the order of confiscation of the auction money of bajra, the present petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Sessions Judge, Balotra. The learned Judge by the judgment dated August 3, 1978 rejected the appeal. 3. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Court as well as the appellate Court, the petitioners have now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the' petitioners strenuously contended that the proceedings against Keshrimal having been dropped, Hamir Chand being acquitted by the trial Court and the remaining accused by the appellate Court, the only course open to the Court was to return the bajra or the money to the petitioners from whose possession it was admittedly seized. According to the learned counsel the petitioners had filed various documents to prove that the bajra seized from them was purchased by them from various persons and was in no way concerned with any bajra alleged to have been illegally taken out from the godown of Keshri Mal and as such the learned Magistrate should not have ordered for its confiscated rather should have allowed the claims of the petitioners. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted through proceedings against Keshri Mal were dropped but the Court had given the finding that the 147 bags seized during the course of investigation were containing the bajra taken out from the godown of Keshri Mai and for that reason there being the contravention of the Rajasthan Food Grains (Prevention of Hoardings) Order, 1973 with regard to this property the order of the confiscation was justified. 6. At the very outset it may be observed that the present petitioners were not accused-in the criminal case against Keshri Mal and his companions. 6. At the very outset it may be observed that the present petitioners were not accused-in the criminal case against Keshri Mal and his companions. This is also pertinent to note that 23 out of 42 witnesses examined in the criminal trial have not supported the prosecution case regarding the taking out of bags of bajra from the godown and being taken to the house of Nemichand and thereafter being given to the present petitioners. It is noteworthy that Keshrimal having died during the pendency of the trial, the proceedings against him were dropped. One of the remaining accused Hamir Chand was acquitted by the trial Court and other four by the appellate Court, be it on the technical ground of want of sanction for prosecution under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate rejected the claims of the petitioners on the ground that, they in order to save deceased Keshrimal have claimed take bajra. The appellate court referred ta this findings of the learned Magistrate and opined that the Magistrate had given order for confiscation on the ground that offence has been committed in connection with the bajra. The learned Judge observed that the appellants (present petitioner) may get their claims for the property in question declared by a Civil Court. Mr. Singhi assailed the findings on the ground that when no case was held to be proved against any of the accused in the criminal trial, there could not be any ground to connect the bajra seized from the petitioners with the commission of any crime. 7. Whether there be conviction or not, property seized during the course of investigation may be liable for confiscation if it is established that the property was connected with the crime or was used for the commission of the crime. In the present case, the evidence on record does not establish that the bags of bajra recovered from the possession of the petitioners were the same in relation to which any crime by any one was committed. It is pertinent to note that only 41 bags of bajra were alleged to be taken out from the concerned godown, while 147 Dags of bajra were seized during the course of investigation from the petitioners and the investigating agency for the reason best known to it considered all the bags to be connected with the crime. It is pertinent to note that only 41 bags of bajra were alleged to be taken out from the concerned godown, while 147 Dags of bajra were seized during the course of investigation from the petitioners and the investigating agency for the reason best known to it considered all the bags to be connected with the crime. A number of documents have been exhibited from the defence side giving the details for the purchase of the bajra by the various petitioners. The learned appellate Court did not express any opinion as to why those documents should not have been believed, and why the appellants (petitioners were to seek relief from a Civil Court. 8. Hem Raj (P.W. 39) S.H.O., Police Station Barmer at the relevant time, could not tell his source of information for bags of the bajra seized being connected with alleged offence. He admitted that there were no marks of identification on the bags. That, there was no mark of Keshri Mai on the bags recovered. He categorically stated that the bajra which was stolen was not identifiable. The witness also admitted that he had hot checked the bahis of Keshri Mai to find out what business he was carrying. Harish Chand Singh (P.W. 31), S.I. of the concerned Police Station who had arrested Keshri Mai. has stated that Keshri Mai who had not given any information to him about any recovery. The very fact of 147 bags of bajra being seized when only 41 bags of bajra were alleged to have been taken out of the godown in contravention of the order for which criminal case was instituted against Keshri Mai and others shows that investigating agency was not proceeding properly with the case. If the prosecution case is considered to be true, still it is impossible to make out from the record as to which 41 bags out of 147 bags were those concerned with the commission with the crime. The record also shows that mostly bajra was seized from kothas and then put in the empty bags lying there. 9. In view of the above discussion when from the material on record it cannot at all be said that the seized bajra was connected with any offence, there can be no justification for confiscating the bajra and depriving the claimants (petitioners) of the sale money. 10. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. 9. In view of the above discussion when from the material on record it cannot at all be said that the seized bajra was connected with any offence, there can be no justification for confiscating the bajra and depriving the claimants (petitioners) of the sale money. 10. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for confiscation of bajra and confirmed by the appellate Court is set aside and the petitioners are held entitled to the auction money according to the quantity of bajra recovered from their possession.Petition allowed. *******