JUDGMENT 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 8.4.98 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Rajnandgaon in Criminal Case No. 168/83 acquitting the accused-respondent of the charges under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the 'IPC') read with Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act, the State has preferred this appeal. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 2.1.1982 near Raipur Check Gate Truck bearing registration No. CPT 2959 was sought to be detained. It did not obey the direction for which it was chased and eventually detained. On a search being conducted 200 bags of 'Lakh' were seized from the truck. The driver was in possession of transit permit pass which was valid upto 31.12.1981. The said pass was also seized. According to the prosecution the said 'Lakh' was not being carried in the prescribed route via Bandha Bazar but was carried through Rajnandgaon to West Bengal. On the aforesaid backdrop the prosecution was launched. 3. The accused disputed the indictment. The learned Magistrate framed charges on 24.6.1984 and thereafter issued summons to the witnesses. Even after expiry of four years no witnesses were produced by the prosecution to substantiate its case. Only one witness, namely, Mahavir Prasad (PW-1) was examined. In fact, notices were issued on 5.11.1985 to be served through the Station House Officer, Lalbagh. Inspite of that, prosecution failed to bring the witnesses. Again notices were issued on 20.1.1986 to Mahavir Prasad who was examined on 22.11.1986. As no other witness was produced, the learned Magistrate opined that the prosecution was not interested to prosecute the case and accordingly passed the order of acquittal. While doing so the learned Magistrate took into consideration the photocopy of the transit permit pass and released the seized 'Lakh' in favour of the accused. It is to be noted here that during the pendency of the case the accused had submitted a guarantee of Rs. 25,000/- for release of the seized 'Lakh'. 4. Assailing the aforesaid judgment of acquittal and order of release in favour of the accused. Mr. R.K. Verma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has contended that the learned Magistrate should have allowed more time to produce the witnesses. 25,000/- for release of the seized 'Lakh'. 4. Assailing the aforesaid judgment of acquittal and order of release in favour of the accused. Mr. R.K. Verma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has contended that the learned Magistrate should have allowed more time to produce the witnesses. It is also his submission that the photocopy of the transit permit pass which was relied on by the learned Magistrate is not on record and in any case it was notworthy of reliance and, therefore, the release of the seized goods in favour of the accused is unsustainable. Mr. Ravish Agrawal and Mr. Sanjay Seth learned counsel for the respondent have supported the order passed by the learned Magistrate. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that in the present appeal the propriety of the direction relating to disposal of the goods, cannot be gone into as the State has preferred this appeal only for assailing of the order of acquittal. 4. Before I advert to deal with the appeal on merits. I think it is appropriate to deal with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties relating to challenge of disposal of property in this appeal. Mr. Verma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has referred me to the memorandum of appeal to indicate that the State has also called in question the defensibility of the direction relating to disposal of the seized property. Undoubtedly, this appeal has been filed challenging the order of acquittal. Such an appeal is preferred under Section 378(1) of the CrPC. An order relating to disposal of property under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the 'CrPC') after conclusion of trial is appealable under Section 454(1) of the Code. But a composite appeal can be preferred and entertained. In this regard I may profitably refer to the decision rendered in the case of Ramavator Sharma v. Sr. Rahmed Ali and another, 1980 CrLJ 306 wherein it has been held as under :-- "Sub-Section (1) of Section 452 enables the Criminal Court at the conclusion of trial to pass an order regarding disposal of property. Sub-Section (4) thereof provides that the order of disposal of the property shall not be carried out for 2 months, or when an appeal is preferred, until such appeal has been disposed of. Sub-Section (4) thereof provides that the order of disposal of the property shall not be carried out for 2 months, or when an appeal is preferred, until such appeal has been disposed of. The expression when an appeal is presented" in this sub-Section may include either an appeal when presented from the disposal order under Section 454(1) or an appeal when presented from the main order of conviction or acquittal as the case may be, because the disposal order may be modified. altered or annulled not only by the Court entertaining an appeal under Section 454(1) hut also by the Court of Appeal dealing with the case in which the disposal order is passed. Again in the case of Santosh Kumar Patel v. State of Orissa & another, 81 (1996) CLT 666 it has been laid down as under :-- "It is well settled in law that the Court hearing appeal arising out of judgment of conviction can issue directions for releasing of seized articles without an independent, appeal being filed by the accused questioning the propriety of order of release. The Courts of Appeal does not exceed to limits by altering or annulling the order of disposal passed by the original Court; there is really no jurisdictional transgression." In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of law, the present appeal can be treated as a composite appeal. 6. As far as order of acquittal is concerned learned Magistrate has observed that four years time was granted to the prosecution to produce the evidence. This fact is also borne out on record and is not disputed by the learned Panel Lawyer for the State. I have perused the evidence of (PW-1) who has clearly stated that nothing was seized in his presence. In view of the obtaining factual matrix, I am of the considered view that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is impeccable and does not warrant interference by this Court. 7. As far as disposal of the seized property is concerned it is noticed that the learned Magistrate has referred to the photocopy of the transit permit pass in Paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment. This Court while grating leave on 5.10.88 had observed that the photocopy is riot on record. Same is also the position today. I do not find it on record. This Court while grating leave on 5.10.88 had observed that the photocopy is riot on record. Same is also the position today. I do not find it on record. The accused may be entitled to an order of acquittal but it is not a necessary coronary that he is entitled to the seized articles. Hence, I am inclined to set aside the aforesaid direction as far as it relates to disposal of the property and direct the matter to be reconsidered by the Magistrate. The accused may prove his entitlement by adducing necessary evidence. 8. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.