Judgment :- Heard. The petitioner is questioning the order of the learned Magistrate dated 1-6-1989 returning primary gold seized in the case marked as M.O. 3 to 20 to the Accused No. 2. Petitioner is the Assistant Collector, Central Excise (Preventive) Unit, Headquarters, Coimbatore. The case is that on 24-5-1985 one person by name P. Ganesh was apprehended in C.T.C. bus on suspicion. On search of that person, 12 numbers of gold rods in a paper packet and 8 numbers of gold rods in another paper packet were found and before he could be examined in detail, under the pretext of answering the calls of nature, he escaped leaving primary goods seized from him. The next day on intelligence the same person was apprehended and interrogated. On investigation it was revealed that his real name was P. Vilasan. It was also ascertained that he came from Kasargod with the primary gold seized in this case for disposal at Coimbatore along with one Kunnikannan and since the broker through whom it is to be sold could not be contacted Kunnikannan returned to Kasargod. On further investigation the said Kunnikannan and broker Ravi were apprehended and their statements were recorded and it came to light that three persons - P. Vilasan, Kunnikannan and Ravi were involved in smuggling of foreign gold converted into primary gold pieces and sold the same. A complaint was filed stating that accused No. 1 had contravened the provisions of Section 11 of Customs Act read with Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that by virtue of adjudication proceedings, M.Os. 3 to 20 as has been confiscated and thereupon vested with the Central Government under Section 126 of the Customs Act and as such, the Criminal Court has no jurisdiction to pass any order of disposal relating to these M.Os. and hence contended that the return is bad in law, and cited a decision reported in 1980 Law Weekly (Criminal) 103 -Raj Kapoorv.State and Another. 3.The counsel for the respondent contended that the code provides a provision for appeal and in such an event the present petition is not maintainable. He invited my attention to the decision reported in 1978 CrLJ 165 -Madhu Limayav.State of Maharashtra.It is stated therein that normally wherever the code provides a provision, Section 482 Cr. P.C. need not be invoked. 3.The counsel for the respondent contended that the code provides a provision for appeal and in such an event the present petition is not maintainable. He invited my attention to the decision reported in 1978 CrLJ 165 -Madhu Limayav.State of Maharashtra.It is stated therein that normally wherever the code provides a provision, Section 482 Cr. P.C. need not be invoked. As an answer to the question, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited the ruling in 1981 Crl. Law Journal page 652 -Municipal Corporation of Delhiv.Giridharlal Sapru and Anotherand also a decision of this court in 1993 Crl. Law Journal page 956 -The Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise, Nagercoilv.Sunder & Anotherand A.I.R. 1977 (Mad.) page 551 and 1982 (10) ELT 272 , 1981 (87) CRLJ 1468 - Devinder Singh, Asstt. Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Patialav.State of Punjab. 4.Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. the High Court can exercise not only the powers thereunder but also as that of the first revisional court, if otherwise, it comes to its notice that an illegality has been committed by any subordinate court to it in exercise of its criminal jurisdiction. It is true that normally 482 Cr. P.C. should not be invoked but in exceptional cases where it is a question touching the jurisdiction and that too, in exceptional cases when there are orders of confiscation which also vested the property with the Union of India. If any illegality has been committed and that has been brought to the notice of the court, such illegal act [is] always to be corrected. The fact of confiscation was brought to the notice of the court and in spite of it, the order was passed by the learned Magistrate. This constitutes an exceptional case questioning the jurisdiction. In such circumstances, this court can always exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and I disagree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, wherever the code provides a provision, Section 482 Cr. P.C. need not be invoked. In exceptional cases to meet the ends of justice, this court can always correct the illegality committed by the Subordinate Courts. The impugned order so far as touching the direction to hand over the property to the accused No. 2 who is the respondent herein is set aside and this petition is allowed.Crl. P.C. need not be invoked. In exceptional cases to meet the ends of justice, this court can always correct the illegality committed by the Subordinate Courts. The impugned order so far as touching the direction to hand over the property to the accused No. 2 who is the respondent herein is set aside and this petition is allowed.Crl. M.P. No. 12345 of 1990: In view of the disposal of the main OP, this petition is also dismissed as unnecessary.