Ainslie, J.
1. We think that the Sessions Judge might have disposed of this case under Section 419, Criminal Procedure Code without a reference to this Court.
2. The words 'Court of appeal' in that section are not necessarily limited to a Court before which an appeal is at the moment pending. It may very often happen, as in this case, that the question of the propriety of an order under Section 418 for the disposal of any property produced before the Court may in no way concern the convicted person; and we think it unreasonable to put such a construction on Section 419 as shall make the power of the Judge to modify, alter on annul a Magistrate's order affecting one, contingent on the accident whether another person has or has not chosen to appeal.
3. Section 286, by the words 'except in the cases provided for by this Act' must include cases in which the power to alter or annul the order of a Magistrate is expressly given.
4. We are further of opinion that the case does not call for our interference. It is admitted in the order of reference that the note came honestly into the hands of the Poddar, to whom it has been returned by the Magistrate. The Sessions Judge refers to Section 108 of the Indian Contract Act, and to the definition of 'goods' in Section 76 of the same Act, q. v. supra I.L.R. 8 Cal. 379 in which, for the purposes of that particular chapter dealing with contracts of sale, the word is defined.
5. No one has appeared to argue the points raised before us. As at present advised, we are of opinion that the provisions of the Contract Act do not apply to this case. The change of a Government currency note for money is no more a contract of sale than the payment of the same not to over the counter of goods is a sale of the note for the goods. In this last case the note is paid as money being 'legal tender' for the amount expressed therein under Section 15, Act III of 1871.[1] Section 77 of the Contract Act defines 'sale' to be the exchange of property for a price, but this is the exchange, of money in one form for money in another form. Either form being legal tender, it is impossible to say that one is the price of the other. If we are to look to Section 76 of the Contract Act, we must read it with Section 77, and this latter section shows that the provisions of that Act, do not apply in this case.
[1]
Section 15: Within any of the said Circles of Issue a note
issued under this Act from any office of Issue in such Circle,
Notes where legal tender. Shall be a tender to the amount expired in such note, in
payment or on account of-
any revenue or other claim to the amount of five rupees and upwards due to the Govern-
ment of India, any Hum of five rupees and upwards due by the Government of India, or by
any body corporate or person in British India:
Provided that no such note shall be deemed to be a legal tender by the Government of
India at any Office of Issue.]