The court clarified the authority to handle seized rice under the Code of Criminal Procedure, Essential Commodities Act, and Kerala Rice (Regulation of Movement) Order, emphasizing the Collector's power to confiscate the rice and the limitations on the Munsif-Magistrate's authority.

The respondent, the accused in a crime before Perintalmanna Police Station, applied before the Munsif-Magistrate, Pattambi for an order directing the Collector to produce before Court the rice seized from him. The Taluk Supply Officer filed objections claiming that the Collector was not bound to produce the rice before the Munsif-Magistrate. The Munsif-Magistrate overruled the objection and passed an order directing the Collector to produce the rice. The State of Kerala has filed the revision petition against that order.

2. A lorry belonging to the respondent carrying 100 bags of rice capsized on 3rd March, 1968, at about 5 p. m. The police reached the scene and seized the rice and the lorry. The respondent and the lorry were produced before the Munsif-Magistrate the next day; and the 100 bags of rice were retained by the police to be produced before the Collector. The respondent was also charged under Section 279 of the Penal Code. The grounds on which the Munsif-Magistrate directed the Collector to produce the rice before him were that the case came within Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and that under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, the Collector had the right to have the rice produced before him only if he had the power to confiscate it. The Munsif-Magistrate held that since the case was now before him, the rice had to be produced before him.

3. The interpretation put upon Section 5 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Munsif-Magistrate does not appear to be correct. The Munsif-Magistrate seems to think that under sub-section (2) of Section 5 a special enactment can regulate only the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with an offence: in his opinion, this will not include making provision for the disposal of the property involved in the offence. The Munsif-Magistrate says that "trying" is only alternative with "otherwise dealing with". This is obviously incorrect. Under Section 5 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of the Code. The expression "otherwise dealt with" occurring in this sub-section evidently includes disposal of property under Chapter XLIII of the Code. The same expression, "otherwise dealing with", occurs in subsection (2) as well; and that expression can only have the same meaning as in sub-section (1). Therefore, if a special statute makes provision for the disposal of the property involved in an offence under that statute, such provision must displace the relevant provisions of the Code. The Criminal Procedure Code is a general code laying down the procedure in criminal cases generally; and if by a special statute an offence is created and provision is also made for the disposal of the property involved in such offence, there cannot be any objection for that provision being applied to the property involved in that offence. Therefore, the view of the Munsif-Magistrate that Section 523 of the Code applies can hold good only if there are no provisions for disposal of property in the Essential Commodities Act and the Kerala Rice (Regulation of Movement) Order.

4. The Munsif-Magistrate has then considered Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act and clause 6 of the Kerala Rice (Regulation of Movement) Order. Under the Act orders can be passed by State Governments; and the Kerala State passed the Kerala Rice (Regulation of Movement) Order of 1966. Clause 6 of that Order empowered certain officers of the Revenue Department, the Civil Supplies Department, etc. to seize paddy and rice, in respect of which there was reason to believe that any provision of the Order had been or was being or was about to be contravened. In such cases the said officers were also empowered to seize the packages, coverings or receptacles in which such rice was found or the animals, vehicles, vessels or other con