JUDGMENT :

Mohit Kumar Shah, J.

The present petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 25.03.2019 passed by the learned A.D.J. 3rd cum Special Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in connection with Manpur P.S. Case No. 22 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 30(a) 37(a) (b) of Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act, 2016, whereby and where-under the learned court below has rejected the petition of the petitioner dated 05.03.2019, filed for release of the motorcycle in question.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that while the informant along with other police personnel were on patrolling duty on 12.02.2019 at 6.30 P.M., the informant got information that some persons were creating nuisance after having consumed liquor, whereafter the informant is stated to have gone at the place of occurrence alongwith police force and had caught the accused persons from whose possession a bag containing two plastic bottles containing two liters of country made liquor were recovered. Thereafter, the aforesaid F.I.R. bearing Manpur P.S. Case No. 22 of 2019 was registered and the motorcycle in question is also stated to have been seized by the police from the place of occurrence.

3. It appears that the petitioner had then filed a petition for release of his motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR-21Q- 0904, before the concerned court on 5.3.2019, but the same has stood dismissed by the impugned order dated 25.3.2019 passed by the learned A.D.J. 3rd cum Special Judge, Nalanda at Biharsarif.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the seized motorcycle and is having its ownership documents as well as registration certificate and, in fact, it is the case of the petitioner that no illicit liquor was recovered from the motorcycle in question.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent, Shri Ashok Kumar, has submitted that despite repeated letters written to the respondents including the District Magistrate, Nalanda, Biharsharif, no response is forth-coming, hence, the present case be decided on the basis of the materials available on record as also the records which have been transmitted to this court by the learned court below and are kept with the file of the present case.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.

7. It is a well settled law that the question of release of the vehicle should be decided by the Court judiciously and expeditiously. Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the power of the Court to order for the custody/disposal of the property pending trial in certain cases and the procedure to be followed by the police upon the seizure of the property, which reads as follows :-

"Section 451 Cr. P.C.- When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of".

"Section 457 Cr. P.C.- (1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.

(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying