S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) BOTH accused persons are petitioners in this application against appellate order under section 454 Cr. P. C. refusing to release the seized property in their favour. ( 2 ) ON 18. 2. 1990, accused persons were found to be in possession of 31 Kilograms of semiprecious Garnet stones: Being of the opinion that accused have either stolen the same or are receivers of stolen property, the stones were seized from them and they were prosecuted for Offences under sections 379/411, I. P. C. In trial, accused persons were acquitted of the offences under sections 379, and 411, I. P. C. on the finding that the charges have not been proved. In spite of the fact that trial Court acquitted the accused, it directed to return the seized stones to the competent mining authority for confiscation to the State. Petitioner being aggrieved by that part of the judgment filed Criminal. Appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge having dismissed the same, this application has been filed. ( 3 ) MR. Jairaj Behera, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the law is now well settled that on acquittal, accused from whose possession the property was seized is to be directed delivery thereof. There is no dispute that normally that should be the direction. Where, however, possession of property is restricted by statutory provision, Court is not to deliver the seized property until the restriction is removed. Court cannot permit a party to violate a statutory restriction by its order. ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that at present, the precious stones seized are governed under the Orissa Minerals, (prevention of Theft, Smuggling and other Unlawful Activities) Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as the Act ). This Act was published in the Official Gazette on 29/11/1989. As required under section 1 (3), it was brought to force by State Government on 20/5/1990 under notification published in Orissa Gazette Extraordinary NO. 636 dated 15/5/1990. Thus, on 18/2/1990 when the stones were seized from the accused, the Act was not in force. ( 5 ) UNDER section 4 of the Act, possession of the Stones is prohibited. It reads as follows: 4. Restriction on possession, storage, etc. 636 dated 15/5/1990. Thus, on 18/2/1990 when the stones were seized from the accused, the Act was not in force. ( 5 ) UNDER section 4 of the Act, possession of the Stones is prohibited. It reads as follows: 4. Restriction on possession, storage, etc. of minerals: - No person shall (i) possess, store, sell, trade in or other wise deal with any mineral, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence; or (ii) transport or remove any mineral from any place except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a permit. Section 12 provides that a person who fails to comply with or contravenes any of the provisions commits an offence. It reads as follows: 12 Penalty: - (1) Whoever fails to comply with or contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or the rules shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both. (2), If the failure or contravention referred to in sub-section (1) continues after the date of conviction, the offender shall be, punishable with an additional fine of two hundred rupees for each day, of such failure or contravention: (3) Offences under this Act shall be cognizable and non-bailable. Under section 16 of the Act, the stones seized are liable to confiscation as provided therein. However, the Act having come into force on 20/5/1990 much after the date of seizure of the stones on 18/2/1990 when the Act was not in force, sections 4, 12 or 16 would not be attracted ipso facto. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, in case Court directs delivery of the stones to petitioners, they would posses the same, no sooner the stones are delivered. Such possession would be in contravention of section 4 since the Act is now in force. Under section 6, restriction on possession can be avoided by obtaining a licence. It reads as follows: 6 Grant of Licence:- (1) Any person who wishes to possess, store, sell, trade in or otherwise deal with any mineral shall make an application to the Competent Authority for a licence. (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made in such form and accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed. It reads as follows: 6 Grant of Licence:- (1) Any person who wishes to possess, store, sell, trade in or otherwise deal with any mineral shall make an application to the Competent Authority for a licence. (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made in such form and accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed. (3) on receipt of an application under sub-section (1) the Competent Authority within the prescribed time may grant a licence in such form, for such period and subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed or may refuse to grant the licence in which case he shall communicate the reason of such refusal to the person concerned. Right of appeal against refusal of licence is provided under section 10. Hence, Court ought to have called upon the petitioners to produce licence from competent authority to consider the question of delivery of the stones to them. There is no scope for confiscation of the stones. Order of the trial Court and that of the appellate Court are vulnerable to that extent. ( 7 ) AS has been held in the decision reported in Radhacharan Das and another v. Padma Charan Patnaik and another, a person acquitted of an offence in respect of any property if seized from his custody is entitled to possession thereof. However, as has been discussed earlier, no sooner possession is handed over, it contravenes section 4 of the Act if no licence is obtained under section 6. An application for licence is a proceeding under the Act. In such a proceeding, presumption is that the stones belong to State Government. This is provided for in section 31 of the Act which reads as follows:presumption that minerals belong to Government: - When, in any proceedings taken under this Act, or in consequence of anything done under this Act, a question arises as to whether any mineral is the property of Government, such mineral shall be presumed to be the property of Government until the contrary is proved. Section 20 of the Act provides that Court is to confiscate the mineral in respect of which an offence is committed in the circumstances indicated therein. It reads as follows:20. Minerals, tools, etc. Section 20 of the Act provides that Court is to confiscate the mineral in respect of which an offence is committed in the circumstances indicated therein. It reads as follows:20. Minerals, tools, etc. liable to confiscation by Courts: - The mineral which are the property of Government and in respect of which an offence has been committed, and all tools, vehicles, and other conveyances used in committing the offence, shall be liable to confiscation unless an order of confiscation has already been passed in respect thereof under section 16. Section 20, however, would not be acquittal where there is an acquittal since no offence is committed in respect of the mineral. On this ground also, the order of confiscation is not sustainable in law. ( 8 ) IN this, case, offences under sections 379/411, I. P. C. were alleged to have been committed prior to the coming into force of the Act. Thus, possession of the stones when f seized was not illegal. Normally, trial Court would have directed delivery of possession to petitioners. But, the Act having came into force, it is not possible. In such circumstances, when property shall be presumed to be of the Governments provided in section 31, Court should have given opportunity to petitioners to establish their title to the property and after obtaining a licence, such property ought to have been delivered to them. Property cannot remain far indefinite period in custody of a criminal Court awaiting a licence. Therefore, Court is to fixed period within which the licence is to be produced. If the licence is not produced within the period fixed and no interim order arranging custody of the property is, made by a, competent Court or authority, criminal Court is to give charge of the stones to the competent authority under section 21 of the Act which reads as follows:21. Disposal of minerals on conclusion, of trial: - When the trial of any offence is concluded, the mineral in respect of which Such offence has been committed shall, if it is the property of Government or has been confiscated, be taken in charge of by the Competent Authority, and in any other case, may be disposed. of in such manner as the Court may direct. of in such manner as the Court may direct. " ( 9 ) TAKING into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, I fix end of June, 1993 far the petitioners to produce the licence required under section 6 whereupon the stones shall be handed aver to the petitioners possessing the licence. In result, application is allowed to the extent indicated above. Application allo wed. .