ORDER S.K. Kar, J. 1. This is a petition under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. intended to challenge the legality of the order dated 2-12-2002 passed by Court of ADM(A), Aizawl, in Criminal Trial No. 2253/2001 (Refer Aizawl P.S. Case No. 723/2001, under Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act read with Section 6(a) PP Rules, 1950 and Section 121/121A of I.P.C.) 2. The officer of the Aizawl Customs Division seized on 29-11-2001 five pieces of A.K. rifles, 2 pieces 9 mm pistols and 22 numbers of live ammunitions concealed in three white nylon bags and wrapped with woolen cloth of foreign origin from a godown located at Zion Street, Aizawl. A second party of customs officers, acting on information, could intercept Mizoram State transport bus at Keifang and apprehended respondent No. 1, who later on identified the bags as his own property and the customs officers recovered Indian currency amounting to Rs. 5880/- (Five thousands eight hundred eighty) and an identity card was also seized from him. Respondent No. 1 having no documents to support possession of these smuggled goods was booked under the Customs Act, 1962 on his admission in presence of witnesses. The smuggled goods along with identity card were seized by the customs officers as per provision of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 vide Seizure Memo No. 68/CL/IMP/CUS/ASAIZ/2001, dated 29-11-2001. 3. On the same day customs authority handed over the respondent alongwith seized arms and ammunitions etc. to the O.C. Aizawl Police Station for taking further action as per other laws and an FIR was filed. Upon the said FIR police registered Aizawl P.S. Case No. 723/2001 under Section25(1-B)(a) Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 6(a) PP Rules, 1950 which was subsequently registered as Criminal Trial No. 2253/2001. 4. Learned Court of Magistrate first class, Pu. H. Darzika, by his order dated, 4-12-2001 directed the A.K. rifles to be kept in 'safe custody' and under care of 1st Bn. M.A.P. Thereafter the District Magistrate, Aizawl district, passed an order dated 14-1-2002, stated to be a 'permission', thereby allowing Pu Sanghmingthanga, H. Pautu and Pu Darzika S.D.O. (S), Aizawl to keep the pistols one each, in their respective custody with a direction to produce the same before the Court when required. 5. M.A.P. Thereafter the District Magistrate, Aizawl district, passed an order dated 14-1-2002, stated to be a 'permission', thereby allowing Pu Sanghmingthanga, H. Pautu and Pu Darzika S.D.O. (S), Aizawl to keep the pistols one each, in their respective custody with a direction to produce the same before the Court when required. 5. In the meantime the Commissioner of Customs, North Eastern Region, Shillong, on receiving the inspection report of the subordinate customs officers and in exercise of his adjudicating authority, observing all legal formalities, ordered the confiscation of the arms and ammunitions, alongwith other articles, seized by the customs Officers, vide Order and Memo No. CCP/NER/246/2002, dated 3-10-2002. Thereafter a petition was addressed to ADM, Aizawl with prayer to release of the arms and ammunitions and return them to customs department as on confiscation these have been vested in the Union of India on the strength of Section 126 of the Customs Act, 1962. But learned Court of ADM, Aizawl, rejected the prayer on the plea that he had power to retain the property on the strength of Sections 451/452 of Cr.P.C. till conclusion of Criminal trial further opining that such release will affect the trial adversely. Hence this revision petition by Union of India. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned P.P. appearing for the State/respondent No. 2. Learned PP submitted that the present custodians of the property in question should have been made respondents in this case in addition to other views expressed. 7. On hearing the parties and after perusal of the materials before me, I find that it is not in dispute that the property/articles in question, which were seized by the customs officers, were handed over to police, only for further action under criminal law. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted referring to citation (Shewpujanrai Indrasenrai v. Collector of Customs) that when an order of confiscation has been passed with respect to a property it operates directly upon the status of the property and Section 126 of the Customs Act confers absolute title to the Union Government with respect to such property which has been confiscated. That the Customs Act, being a special Act, its provisions are to get priority over the general law. That the Customs Act, being a special Act, its provisions are to get priority over the general law. The learned ADM, Aizawl, erred in rejecting the prayer of the Commissioner, Customs, and it was wrong on his part of opine that there cannot be any confiscation order when criminal proceeding is in progress. That a parallel proceeding under the Customs Act is permissive even if any criminal proceeding is pending on same facts and against same person but the Court of ADM, Aizawl has misconceived the law in passing the impugned Order on 2-12-2002 erroneously intervening directly with the order of confiscation passed under authority of Customs Act. That it is erroneous also on the part of the respective Magistrates to pass orders allowing Government Officers to keep custody to the fire arms or keeping the same in custody of 1st Bn. MAP etc. 9. That the Courts below had made the entire process of law farcical by allowing bail of Rs. 3000/- to the accused who was a foreigner and naturally the accused absconded. The bail bond was discharged by accepting only a petty sum of Rs. 1200/- from surety and thus there will be no probability of apprehending the accused now, who is a citizen of Myanmar, to put him to trial etc. etc. 10. Be that as it may, the petition is directed against propriety/legality of impugned order dated 2-12-2002 (Annexure-X) rejecting prayer of Customs Authority to hand over the custody of the seized articles to it. So, it is to be seen whether the Court of ADM (A) had any power to pass such an order rejecting the contention the Deputy Commissioner of Customs for handing over the seized articles to the custom department. At the risk of repetition it may be mentioned here that it was the customs department who seized the incriminatory articles and forwarded the same to the police for taking additional action under the criminal law. The Customs Act, 1962 has replaced earlier laws in this respect i.e. The Sea Custom Act, 1878. The Inland Bonded Warehouse Act, 1896 the Land Customs Act, 1924 etc. The citation referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner was in relation to law given by Section 182 of the Sea Custom Act which has been substituted by Section 122 of the Customs Act, 1962, which deals with adjudication of confiscation and penalties. The Inland Bonded Warehouse Act, 1896 the Land Customs Act, 1924 etc. The citation referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner was in relation to law given by Section 182 of the Sea Custom Act which has been substituted by Section 122 of the Customs Act, 1962, which deals with adjudication of confiscation and penalties. There is nothing to dispute the power of the Custom Officers to deal independently with the course of confiscation of goods seized under the provision of Customs Act. A Division Bench of this Court in this context vide (1985) 1 G LR 193 held as follows :- "The Legislature intended the Criminal Courts and the customs authorities to act in two separate water-tight compartments that their jurisdiction was mutually exclusive because in one case 'adjudication' terminated in award of confiscation or penalty while in the other case trial in a Criminal Court was meant for 'infliction of punishment'." We may look into the provision of Section 126 of the Customs Act, 1962 in this context. It goes as follows :- "126. On confiscation, property to vest in Central Government. (1) When any goods are confiscated under this Act such goods shall thereupon vest in the Central Government. (2) The officer adjudging confiscation shall take and hold possession of the confiscated goods." Therefore, it has been rightly submitted by the learned lawyer of the petitioner that on confiscation the goods that were seized by the customs have been vested in the Central Government and the officer adjudging confiscation is the rightful authority to take and hold possession of the confiscated goods. 11. It will be pertinent to note in this context that the Court of District Magistrate was passing whimsical orders by handing over the pistol to custody of the very Magistrate under heading of 'Permission' before whom the seized articles were produced. It is also to be noted that the Court did not take care for the judicial custody of the accused and granted him bail of Rs. 3000/-with one surety and on his not respecting the bail the surety to that effect was released from liability by accepting a petty sum of Rs. 1200/-. It is also to be noted that the Court did not take care for the judicial custody of the accused and granted him bail of Rs. 3000/-with one surety and on his not respecting the bail the surety to that effect was released from liability by accepting a petty sum of Rs. 1200/-. It appears that the learned Magistrates were not behaving as responsible officers of the Court and were painfully unaware of the responsibility and duty of the Court to pass appropriate and correct orders on issues that are brought before them in the process of administration of justice and in due course of discharge of other duties etc. 12. In the impugned order learned ADM, Aizawl district, maintained the views that confiscation was not possible when criminal proceeding was in progress, that once cognizance was taken by Criminal Court there cannot be any question of release of the seized article and Court can dispose the same on the strength of Sections 451/452 of Cr. P.C. and that any release of the articles will affect the trial adversely etc. In expressing such views learned Court of ADM was perhaps oblivious of the fact that any order passed under Section 451 of Cr. P.C. is temporary and intended only to preserve the property pending trial : 1985 Cri LJ 951 (Ker). There was specific statement from the side of the petitioner that he will undertake to produce the seized articles as and when required by the Court. This was sufficient guarantee to hand over the articles to the custom department. This would also be appropriate as in the present case because the accused has not come up with any plea of legal ownership of the property seized. It cannot be disputed that articles which come under the domain of smuggled goods are within the authority of the customs department who deals with the same as per Customs Act which is a special Act and Section 5 of Cr. P.C. provides that provisions in Cr. P.C. will not come in clash with any special or local law for the time being in force. It will be convenient to quote Section 5 of Cr. P.C. as below. 5. P.C. provides that provisions in Cr. P.C. will not come in clash with any special or local law for the time being in force. It will be convenient to quote Section 5 of Cr. P.C. as below. 5. Nothing contained in this Code shall in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. Moreover, Sub-section (2) of Section 126 of Customs Act has provided that consequent to confiscation the Customs Officer will take custody of the property. Therefore, the impugned order of the ADM is absolutely without jurisdiction and illegal. 13. In the result the petition is allowed and impugned order dated 2-12-2002 (Annexure-X) passed by learned ADM, Aizawl district in Criminal Trial No. 2253/2001 is set aside. Learned ADM (A) or any other Magistrate dealing with the case will hand over the seized articles, vide Customs Case No. 68/CL/IMP/CUS/AS-AIZ/2001 dated 29-11-2001, to the petitioner immediately. Send back the LCR forthwith.