1) This revision is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.1 owner of the vehicle under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the order dated 14.05.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.1235 of 2014 in Crime No.275/2014 of Khanapuram Haveli Police Station, Khammam District registered for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act under which the petition under Section 457 of Cr.P.C filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Khammam.

2) Brief facts are that the petitioner is the owner of the auto bearing No.AP 20 TB 6112 and the same was seized by the Khanapuram Haveli police in connection with a case in Crime No.275 of 2014 under cover of panchanama dated 28.04.2014 for the offence punishable under the above section of law for which the accused No.1 being the owner of the vehicle filed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.1235 of 2014 under Section 457 Cr.P.C praying to release the vehicle. The grounds urged in the said petition that he is depending on the income by driving the auto only and there is no other source of income except running the crime vehicle which the police seized. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the offence is under Excise Act.

3) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this revision on the grounds that the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition without any valid or cogent reasons, that it ought not to have proceeded on the wrong premise with regard to the actual custody of the seized vehicle, for the custody could be either actual or symbolic, that the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class has jurisdiction as the report of seizure of the vehicle was made after registration of crime and more particularly the crime was registered by the police (Law and order) and prayed to release the vehicle as it is the only source of income for the petitioner.

4) The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition stating the learned trial Magistrate is correct in his observation on want of jurisdiction to entertain the application and it makes no difference of the crime registered is by police or excise or forest or other officials and thus there is nothing for this Court to interfere by sitting in revision and sought for dismissal.

5) Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

6) Now, the points that arise for consideration are

(i) Whether the impugned order of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Khammam dated 14.05.2014 is not sustainable and to what extent this Court to interfere while sitting in revision and with what observations?

(ii) To what result?

POINT No.i:

7) Pending investigation of the above excise crime under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act with reference to seizure of the contraband carrying in the vehicle by the regular police, the application is filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C before the lower Court by the petitioner-accused No.1 claiming as owner of the vehicle saying the crime auto is the only source of income by its self driving to eke out his livelihood and being the owner of the vehicle is seeking interim custody undertaking not to change the colour and utility.

8) The Learned Magistrate by order dated 14.05.2014 dismissed the same for want of jurisdiction to entertain the petition with the observations that Section 13(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act and Section 46(e) of the A.P. Excise Act with the wording similarly with non-abstante clause, irrespective of what is contained in Cr.P.C when the Deputy Commissioner of Excise/Prohibition or the appellate authority is seized with the matter under the Acts, no Court shall entertain any application with respect to liquor, receptacle, package, covering any animal, cart, vehicle or other conveyance, but for they alone with exclusive jurisdiction with regard to the disposal of the same (Section 13-E among Sections 13-A to 13-F is introduced i