( 1 ) THE petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. APO 884. His vehicle was seized by S. I. of Police, Mettapally while transporting black jaggery and other prohibited items under the A. P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short "the Act" ). On such seizure, a case was registered in Cr. No. 43/2002 under S. 34 (E) of the Act and FIR was dispatched to Judicial First Class Magistrate, Huzurnagar on 6-7-2002, whereas seized property along with vehicle was transferred to the Inspector of Prohibition and Excise, Huzurnagar on 24-7-2002. The petitioner filed an application for release of the vehicle before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Huzurnagar under S. 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"), but the same was dismissed by his order dt. 11-7-2002 holding as follows :"police is not reported about the seizure of property as per S. 457 (1) of Cr. P. C. Moreso, this is prematured stage for ordering disposal of the property. . . . . . . "against which, the petitioner filed Crl. Petition No. 5055 of 2002 before this Court. This Court in Crl. M. P. No. 6903/2002 in Crl. P. No. 5055 of 2002 passed the following order :"interim custody of the vehicle bearing No. APO 884 be granted to the petitioner subject to his executing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) with two solvent sureties in a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Huzurnagar, on the petitioner undertaking to produce the vehicle before the Court as and when required, and not to alienate or encumber the said vehicle, and undertaking not to change the colour of the vehicle, and not to remove any spare parts therefrom and to maintain the vehicle in a good condition. "it is stated that after obtaining the above order, the petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar, who by his proceedings No. 211 of 2002 dt. 8-11-2002 directed the State House Officer, Mettapally P. S. , to release the vehicle to the petitioner. On receipt of the said letter, the Inspector of Police, Mettapally P. S. , filed a memo stating that entire case property including the vehicle was handed over to the Inspector, Prohibition and Excise, Huzurnagar and he is not a party to Crl. M. P. No. 6903/2002. Therefore, the petitioner moved this Court by way of present writ petition.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle was produced before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise under S. 46 of the Act before whom confiscation proceedings were initiated and requests the Court to direct him to release the vehicle. Learned counsel failed to substantiate how the vehicle can be released by the Magistrate under S. 457 of the Code in the absence of producing vehicle before him except stating that the order passed by this Court in Crl. M. P. No. 6903/2002 cannot be flouted by the authorities.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, learned Government pleader for Excise has failed to assist the Court as to who can pass an order for release of the vehicle, whereas this Court in exercise of inherent power under S. 482 ordered for release of vehicle pending Cr. M. P. No. 5055 of 2002 filed for quashing the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate in Crl. M. P. No. 1499/2002 in Cr. No. 43/2002 dt. 11-7-2002.

( 4 ) IN view of the complex question, the sole point at issue for decision in this writ petition is whether the vehicle of the petitioner can be ordered for interim custody by issuing a mandamus for due implementation of the orders passed by this Court in Crl. M. P. No. 6903/2002, dt. 5-11-2002 or not.

( 5 ) FOR better appreciation of the point at issue, it is useful to extract some of the relevant provisions of the A. P. Excise Act, 1968. 45. Liability of certain things to confiscation : Whoever any offence has been committed, which is punishable under this Act, following things shall be liable to confiscation namely :- (1) and (2) ****************; (3) any rec