JUDGMENT

A.R. Tiwari. J. - "No light", said Milton in paradise Lost, "but rather darkness visible". But Courts determined to secure harmony and spurn antinomy between law and justice search "light" in lexicon of law in a surge of an urge to say no darkness, but only light visible". In such determination, resting on linchpin of epicerastic exercise, Courts bear in mind that "law" has to enchisel "flaw" and ensure "flow" in doctrinal direction. After all, no one can have a droit in recourse to opposite course. This inbred intendment aptly takes us to the issue to be unknotted.

2. The issue is manifest conflict in two decisions of equal vigour.

3. One of us (Hon'ble Shukla, J.), sitting single, found, while hearing this criminal revision presented by the State under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'code') against the order dated 24-7-1996 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Indore (Motor Vehicle Magistrate) in O.A. No. 11471/96, thereby directing release in purported exercise of power under Section 457 of the Code, of Passenger Bus No. MP 09-5-1820 plying between Gwalior and Indore and seized and detained by the Taxation Authority (The Transport Inspector) on 1877-1996 in terms of Section 16(3) of the M.P. Motor Yan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 (For short 'Adhiniyam') on the fulcrum of non-possession of, valid permit, as required under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 (for short The Act) and non-payment of tax leviable under the Act, on supratnama of 9 lakhs, supported by surety of equal value, on specified conditions, discordant sound in two Divisional Bench decisions-One: Brahmanand v. State of M.P.1 decided by Hon'ble Kokje and Shukla, JJ. Holding in M.P. No. 1388/92 on 2-12-1993 that a Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction would, therefore, have jurisdiction to grant temporary custody of the vehicle under the Code of Criminal Procedure" even when seized and detained under Section 16(3) of the Adhiniyam and two Durgaprasad v. M.N. Gupta and Others, F.A. No. 116/1971 decided by Hon'ble G.P. Singh and C.P. Sen, JJ.  holding in F.A. arising out of suit for damages on 26-2-1975 that "A Magistrate has no jurisdiction underthat provision to release the vehicle seized under Section 18(3) of the Act" (M.P. Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Goods) Act, 1962, repealed by Adhiniyam of 1991 in terms of Section 26) and forwarded the case on 24-2-1997 to be laid before Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute Full Bench to resolve the conflict and opine as to which of the two sounds in regard to "yes" or "no" to the jurisdiction of Criminal Court has seniority to law i.e. Adhiniyam vis-a-vis Code.

4. As noted in proceedings of 243-1997, tax, as leviable, is said to have been paid by the Non-applicant (owner of the vehicle) after securing release on Supratnama and surety. This purpose, as envisaged under Section 16(3) of Adhiniyam, i.e. seizure and detention for "the realisation of tax due", thus, appears to have been achieved.

5. The issue before us is to determine as to whether or not Criminal Court has jurisdiction to. release vehicle, even temporarily on Supratnama under provisions of the code when seized by the Taxation Authority or by any other officer, authorised by the State Government in this behalf on the ground of specified faults and defaults and thus, to decide as to which of the aforesaid two decisions laid down the' correct law and should hold the field hereafter? The allied question is whether order dated 24-7-1996 and consequent Supratnama are, irrespective of determination of the aforesaid issue, liable to be incinerated at this distance of time- after undisputed payment of fax as was due. The submission on 24-7-1997 before Single Bench was that the issue, after discharge of liability of tax, had become academical. True it is that law cannot run smooth course in state of tenebrosity. When there is a question of enormity of absence or presence of jurisdiction of Criminal Court large