JUDGMENT : SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of U.P. and Sri Ram Asarey Verma, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Sri Arvind Kumar Chaudhary, the District Agriculture Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri is also present in compliance of the order dated 22.12.2023, passed by this court. 3. The instant revision has been filed by the State under Section 397 (1), 401 of Cr.P.C. assailing the validity of the order dated 03.04.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Court No. 4/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2023. 4. The aforesaid appeal was filed against an order dated 06.03.2023, passed by learned Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue, Lakhimpur Kheri in Case No. 132 of 2023, under Section 6-A of U.P. Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The aforesaid order states that a team of officials had carried out surprise inspection of M/s Govind Industries, Rajapur, Development Block Rajapur, Lakhimpur Kheri. During inspection fake fertilizers, packing material and illegal storage of fertilizers were found. Some raw material meant to be used in manufacturing of fertilizer was also found during inspection. 5. Amongsts numerous articles seized by the Inspection Team a truck loaded with fertilizer belonging to the respondent was also included. By means of an order dated 06.03.2023, the Additional District Magistrate has ordered that the sealed fertilizer/raw material used for manufacturing of fertilizer was subject to natural decay and accordingly it was ordered to be confiscated. The request for release of the other seized articles, including the truck of the opposite party and the goods loaded on it, was turned down. 6. The respondent filed an appeal no. 22 of 2023 against the order of seizure of goods loaded on the respondent's truck and he filed an Appeal No. 21 of 2023 against seizure of truck. Both the appeals have been allowed by means of separate orders dated 03.04.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Court No. 4/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Lakhimpur Kheri and the respondent's truck and goods have been ordered to be released in its favour. 7. It has been held in the appellate order that the appellant's truck loaded with some goods was parked in the premises of Govind Industries, Rajapur. 7. It has been held in the appellate order that the appellant's truck loaded with some goods was parked in the premises of Govind Industries, Rajapur. The appellant had produced GST invoice, bills insurance, e-way bill etc which indicated that the goods had been transported from UPSIDC Industrial Area Malwa, District Fatehpur to Maigalganj, Lakhimpur Kheri. A slight deviation in the destination would not establish that the goods were being taken elsewhere. The fertilizer loaded in the truck was subject to decay. While ordering release of goods, the appellate court has laid down certain conditions. 8. The State has filed a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the aforesaid order. 9. Sub-Section (2) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. provides that the powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. By means of the order dated 06.03.2023, the Additional District Magistrate had merely declined to release the seized goods of the respondent, which order has been reversed in appeal. The order of seizure of goods or their release does not affect the merits of the case either way and it is purely an interlocutory order. Therefore, in view of the provisions contained in Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. the revision filed against an order of seizure of goods under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act or an appellate order reversing the order of seizure would not be maintainable. 10. Accordingly, the revision is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed.