Order.- The State has filed this revision petition. It arises out of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bidar, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 14/5 of 1965 setting aside the order of the trial Court in C.C.Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9/3 of 1965 regarding the confiscation of the Radio apparatus. Briefly stated, the facts are as follow: - The respondent was tried for an offence under section 6(3) of the Indian Wireless Telegraph Act for possession of radio set in the shop situated at Osman Gunj Area, Bidar Town, without obtaining license as required under section 5 of the said Act on payment of prescribed fees and further that he did not obtain license for 1957 and he did not renew in for the years 1958 to 1965. The respondent pleaded guilty. The learned District Magistrate held that the respondent committed an offence under section 3 of the said Act for not having obtained license for possessing radio set and he convicted him for that offence. The Respondent was not convicted for the offence of not renewing the license. The respondent was imposed the extreme penalty of Rs. 100 prescribed by law. The learned District Magistrate in the circumstances of the case thought it fit to confiscate the radio set under sect on 6(3) of the Act. The respondent did not challenge the conviction and sentence of fine imposed on him by the trial Court, but he challenged the order of confiscation of the radio set before the Sessions Court at Bidar. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the confiscation of the wireless apparatus amounted to hardship to the petitioner in addition to the fine imposed on him. Therefore, the order of confiscation was set aside by the learned Sessions Judge. It is against this order that this revision petition is filed. The only contention of the State Public Prosecutor is that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in assuming jurisdiction under section 520 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Further he urged that the learned District Magistrate did not pass an order under section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but he passed an order as required under section 6(3) of the Indian Wireless Telegraph Act. There is force in the contention of the learned State Public Prosecutor. The provisions of section 6(3) of the Act read as follows: “6(3). There is force in the contention of the learned State Public Prosecutor. The provisions of section 6(3) of the Act read as follows: “6(3). If in the trial of an offence under this section the accused is convicted, the Court shall decide whether any apparatus in respect of which an offence has been committed should be confiscated, and if it so decides, may order confiscation accordingly.” It is clear from the above provision that the Magistrate trying the offences under the Act is fully empowered to decide whether any apparatus in respect of which an offence has been committed should be confiscated and order accordingly. Admittedly an application challenging the order of confiscation was filed before the learned Sessions Judge under the provisions of section 520, Criminal Procedure Code. Section 520 reads as under: “Any Court of Appeal, confirmation, reference or revision may direct any order under section 517, section 518 or section 519, passed by a Court subordinate thereto, to be stayed pending consideration by the former Court, and may modify, alter or annul such order and make any further orders that may be just.” Chapter XLIII of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with the provisions relating to disposal of property. Sections 517 and 523 appear in the said chapter. It is a procedural one and merely enumerates the order of disposal of property which the Court can pass if it is otherwise competent. Before the Amendment Act XVIII of 1923, section 517, Criminal Procedure Code, originally conferred on the Court the power to pass an order for disposal of the property simpliciter. But, after the said amendment, it enabled the Court to make an order for the disposal of any property produced before it and the manner in which such disposal can be made such as "by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof". The provisions of Criminal Procedure Code inclusive of section 517 apply to offences under the Indian Penal Code as provided under section 5(1), Criminal Procedure Code. In the case of other offences, section 5(2), Criminal Procedure Code, provides that all offences under any other law shall be dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. In the case of other offences, section 5(2), Criminal Procedure Code, provides that all offences under any other law shall be dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. Thus, section 5, Criminal Procedure Code, however makes a distinction between the offences under the Indian Penal Code and offences under any other law. In the case of latter offences, the procedure to be followed is one provided by the Criminal Procedure Code subject to the provisions of any other law. This is clear from the expression "otherwise dealing, with such offences" in section 5(2), Criminal Procedure Code, which bring into action the machinery under the Code subject to the provisions of any other law. Section 517 therefore merely enumerates various powers which may be exercised by the Court. Thus, the power of forfeiture or confiscation are derived by the Courts or any other authority from the various statutes creating the offences. The decision in Purushottam Devji v. Emperor1, lays down as follows: "Where a statute specifies a particular mode of enforcing a new obligation created by it, such obligation can as a general rule be enforced in no other manner than that provided by the statute. The wider power of confiscation conferred by section 517, Criminal Procedure Code, must be regarded as impliedly limited by Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules. Section 517, Criminal Procedure Code, was not therefore applicable to the present case. " In a later decision in Hansraj Astaji v. Emperor2, a Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court laid down the law as follows: ‘The provision in Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules is that the order of confiscation may be made if the order so provides. That shows a clear intention of the Legislature that no order for confiscation can be made if the order did not provide for it. That shows a clear intention of the Legislature that no order for confiscation can be made if the order did not provide for it. The words "if the order so provides" limit the Court’s power to order confiscation under the general provisions of section 517, Criminal Procedure Code." In a decision of the Bombay High Court in Emperor v. Raghunath Krishna Ghemekar3, it is laid down as follows: Where the Court wishes to exercise its power of forfeiture given by a statute e.g. clause 7-A of the Food Grains Control Order, 1942, the power must be exercised under the specific provisions to be found in the statute (i.e. clause 7-A), and not under any other provision of law (e.g. section 617 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898). Hence a Magistrate in deciding a case under the Food Grains Control Order should if he wishes to pass an Order under clause 7-A of the Order, himself pass the order of forfeiture and not leave, under section 518 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the order to be passed by the District Magistrate under section 523 of the Code." Sri Jahagirdar invited my attention to another decision of the former High. Court of Mysore in Paliah v. Government of Mysore4, wherein it is observed as follows: If a special law provides a specific penalty for the contravention of any order contained therein, the operation of the general law (e.g. section 517 (1), Criminal Procedure Code) to that extent is rendered inapplicable." The State Public Prosecutor brought to my notice another decision in Pratap Singh and others v. The State5, wherein it is laid down as follows: "The general provisions of section 517 do not apply to cases under statutes in which special provisions for forfeiture have been made by the Magistrate. Therefore section 517 does not apply to cases under the Black Marketting Act." In another Full Bench decision reported in Abdul Majid v. Emperor6, while interpreting the Defence of India Rules, rule 81(4) as amended in 1943 the law laid down is as follows: “The words ‘if the order so provides’ in Rule 81(4) limit the Courts power to order confiscation under the general provisions of section 517, Criminal Procedure Code, and clearly indicate that the property which is the subject-matter of the proceedings can be confiscated only if the order alleged to have been contravened provides for confiscation. If the order alleged to have been contravened does not so provide there is no power of confiscation.” Therefore, the view taken by a number of High Courts in this country is that the general provisions of section 517 do not apply to cases under statutes in which special provisions for forfeiture, have been made. In the instant case as pointed out already, there is a provision made for confiscation of wireless apparatus under section 6(3) of the Indian Wireless Telegraph Act. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in entertaining the application under section 520, Criminal Procedure Code, and setting aside the order of confiscation passed by the District Magistrate, Bidar. Therefore, the said order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. Sri Jahagirdar, learned Advocate for the respondent contended that this Court should exercise the revisional powers under section 439 and correct the mistake committed by the trial Court in confiscating the radio set be longing to the respondent. He urged that after the order of confiscation was passed against the respondent, the Postmaster-General, Mysore Circle, issued him a notice dated 9th June, 1965, calling upon him to pay the amount due to the Department and obtain license. The respondent was called upon to remit Rs. 486-75. The notice further indicated that on failure on the part of the respondent to comply with the demand made within one month from the date of the said letter issued to him further action would be taken as per law to recover the amount due from him. Sri Jahagirdar brought to my notice three receipts in which the respondent has paid three instalments of Rs. 50 each towards the dues to the Government. While passing the order of confiscation what weighed with the District Magistrate was that the Department would sustain loss of the license fee from the year 1957 to 1965. It is on account of that he thought it fit to order confiscation of the radio set. But, it has so transpired that the Department is now not sustaining any loss but they have taken proceedings to recover the amount that is due from the respondent. Therefore, the order of confiscation passed by the District Magistrate is also not justifiable and is liable to be set aside. But, it has so transpired that the Department is now not sustaining any loss but they have taken proceedings to recover the amount that is due from the respondent. Therefore, the order of confiscation passed by the District Magistrate is also not justifiable and is liable to be set aside. For the reasons stated above, the order passed by the Sessions Judge is hereby set aside and further the order of confiscation passed by the trial Court is also hereby set aside. Petition dismissed. S.V.S. ----- Petition dismissed.