ORDER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. preferred by the State in which the Judgment and Order dated 07.03.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Criminal Revision No. 12/2022 has been put to challenge. The aforesaid order arises out of an order dated 14.01.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi in Lala P.S. Case No. 846/2021 under Sections 379/411 of the IPC. 2. For better appreciation of the issue involved, the facts of the case may be stated in brief. 3. On 24.12.2021, a case was registered before the Lala Police Station, being Lala P.S. Case No. 846/2021 regarding storage and transportation of huge quantity of Burmese Betel Nuts which were suspected to be stolen. In the said search conducted, 394 nos. of gunny bags containing 20,020 Kilograms of the Burmese Betel Nuts was seized vide seizure list dated 22.12.2021. 4. The formal F.I.R. was lodged on 24.12.2021. While the investigation was going on, the respondent had filed a zimma petition for the commodities in which the learned Magistrate had called for a report which was accordingly submitted. Thereafter, vide order dated 14.01.2022, the zimmapetition was allowed in favour of the respondent. The aforesaid order of 14.01.2022 was the subject matter of challenge in Criminal Revision No. 12/2022 before the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi which was preferred by the State. The learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, however, vide order dated 07.03.2022 had dismissed the said revision petition. Consequently, the present application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 5. I have heard Shri P.N. Goswami, learned Addl. Advocate General Assam for the petitioner -State whereas the sole respondent is represented by Ms. P. Sikdar, the learned counsel. 6. Shri Goswami, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam for the petitioner submits that the orders which are the subject matter of challenge arise from an application for zimma made under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. which itself is a wrong provision of law. He submits that the provision of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. is to be invoked only at the time of enquiry or trial and not at the stage of investigation and admittedly, in the instant case, the investigation is yet to be over. He submits that the provision of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. is to be invoked only at the time of enquiry or trial and not at the stage of investigation and admittedly, in the instant case, the investigation is yet to be over. He therefore, submits that both the learned Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi as well as the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi had erred in exercising jurisdiction under the aforesaid provision of law. The learned State counsel submits that this aspect of the matter was overlooked leading to passing of the impugned orders which are liable to be interfered with. 7. The learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, however fairly submits that under Chapter XXXIV of the Cr.P.C., there are other provisions which could have been taken into recourse for dealing the situation of this nature. 8. The learned State Counsel, accordingly submits that appropriate orders be passed for interfering with the order dated 07.03.2022 of the learned Sessions Judge by which the earlier order dated 14.01.2022 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hailakandi has been affirmed. 9. On the other hand, Ms. Sikdar, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that when a second revision is barred under the provisions of Section 397 (3) of the Cr.P.C., the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed only to circumvent the said legal bar and therefore, the same should not be entertained. The learned counsel further submits that the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hailakandi dated 14.01.2022 and the order dated 07.03.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi are reasoned order which do not call for any interference. 10. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate, before passing the order dated 14.01.2022 had taken into consideration the reports which were called for in the petition filed for zimmaof the goods. 11. The learned counsel finally submits that the objection regarding application of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. is a technical objection as the other provisions contained in the Chapter-XXXIV of the Cr.P.C. would save the orders passed in the proceedings. 12. It is also submitted that the goods in question are perishable in nature and in spite of the orders passed by both the Courts, the zimma has not been granted to them and therefore, the petitioner should not be given any hearing. 13. 12. It is also submitted that the goods in question are perishable in nature and in spite of the orders passed by both the Courts, the zimma has not been granted to them and therefore, the petitioner should not be given any hearing. 13. Rejoining the submission made on behalf of the respondent, Shri Goswami, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam submits that the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is a discretionary power which may be exercised in a suitable case and the said power had to be invoked as there is a legal bar under Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C. The learned counsel submits that while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., there is no such legal bar as it is an inherent power of the Court to ensure that the ends of justice are met. 14. This Court has given its anxious considerations to the submission made by the parties. 15. Though the petitioner may be correct in contending that the powers under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. are to be exercised only at the time of enquiry or trial and not during the time of investigation, the learned State Counsel has also fairly referred to the other provisions of the Chapter XXXIV by which powers can be invoked by the Trial Court even at the time of investigation to ensure that minimum loss is caused to either of the parties. In the instant case, it appears that the seizure was done on 22.12.2022 and the materials are still lying in the custody of the State and till date it is submitted that the goods in question being perishable in nature, there is decrease in the value. 16. At this stage, both the learned counsel, however refer to a new SOP by which other uses for the articles in question have also been permitted. 17. In that view of the matter and without going into the rival contention, this Court is of the opinion that pending investigation and Trial, an endeavour should be made so that the loss suffered by either of the parties can be minimized. 18. In that view of the matter, this Court directs that the seized goods in question, namely, Burmese Betel Nuts be put to auction by the Government strictly as per procedure laid down. 18. In that view of the matter, this Court directs that the seized goods in question, namely, Burmese Betel Nuts be put to auction by the Government strictly as per procedure laid down. The State however is to ensure that proper publicity is given before such auction giving atleast 15 days time so that a fair auction can be held in which maximum price can be fetched. 19. It is needless to say that the sale proceeds of the auction is to be deposited in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hailakandi and would be subject to the outcome of the Lala P.S. Case No. 846/2021. 20. The petition is accordingly disposed of.