Judgment ( 1. ) The applicant have preferred this revision under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure aggrieved by the order dated 9/10/2009 passed by the learned Ist. Addl. Sessions Judge, Khargone, West Nimar passed in Cr. Appeal No. 121 /08 whereby while disposing the appeal preferred by the accused persons also directed for confiscation of the seized liquor which belonged to the present applicant. ( 2. ) Brief facts of the case are: the Excise Police of Kasrawad District Khargone on 20/8/1995 near Toll Tax Barrier Khalghat inspected Truck bearing registration MP-14-B-6103 and found therein 576 containers each having 12 bottles genius whisky and 25 containers having 48 quarters genius whisky. Accused Dinkar Singh and Shankar Lal were found present in the concerned truck. On investigation, it was found that the liquor was to be transported from Bhopal to Jaipur on a particular route for which the valid permit has been issued by the competent authority. Instead of that, both the accused persons have illegally transported it towards Khalghat from where the liquor has been seized on which basis the Excise Police registered a case and charge-sheeted the accused persons for contravention of the permit before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khargone. Learned Magistrate, by judgment dated 10.9.08 held both the accused persons Dinkar Singh and Shankarlal guilty of the offence under section 34Aof the Excise Act and sentenced them accordingly. But for the seized liquor, it is directed that after the period of appeal the liquor which has been given on Supurdginama of the applicant will remain in possession of Supurdgidar who is shown to be the owner of the liquor. When the accused persons preferred Cr. Appeal No. 121/08 before the Addl. Sesssions Judge, Khargone, the learned Appellate Court while affirming the finding of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Magistrate, also directed for confiscation of the seized liquor, hence, aggrieved by the said part of judgment, the applicant being the rightful owner of liquor, has preferred this revision petition. ( 3. ) Having heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned P.P. for the State and perused the record. ( 4. ( 3. ) Having heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned P.P. for the State and perused the record. ( 4. ) It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the learned Appellate Court committed errer in ordering confiscation of the seized liquor without giving an opportunity to the applicant for hearing on this point, therefore, on this sole ground prayed for setting aside the aforesaid direction for confiscation of the aforesaid seized liquor. ( 5. ) Learned P.P. for the State supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. ( 6. ) After hearing both the counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Appellate Court, while ordering for confiscation of the seized liquor, has not given notice to the present applicant who is shown to be the rightful owner of the liquor concerned and without giving him any opportunity of being heard, the aforesaid order for confiscation of the seized liquor has been passed which is against the natural justice and on this ground itself, order passed by the Appellate Court is liable to be set aside. ( 7. ) Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order to the extent of confiscation of liquor concerned is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khargone with a direction to issue notice to the present applicant, the owner of the seized liquor and after giving him opportunity of being heard, pass appropriate order for disposal of the liquor concerned, in accordance with law. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khargone together with its record for disposal of appeal to the extent of direction given by this Court.