1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The petition has been filed against the revisional order dated 24.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bikaner in criminal revision No. 70/2000, whereby the he upheld the order dated 31.10.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lunkaransar in connection with F.I.R. No. 95/2001 of the Police Station, Mahajan refusing to release the petitioner's jeep No. RJ-21-C-3812.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that under Section 69(e) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, the jeep was not liable to confiscation. As per his argument, the jeep was not carrying such receptacle or package in respect of which offence under the Excise Act has been committed. As per allegations of the prosecution, so called jeep was escorting the truck, in which the so called illicit liquor was being carried. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further argued that under newly inserted Section 54-A of the Act, the owner shall only be deemed to be guilty of the offence when the conveyance is used in commission of this offence and this act of confiscation is on the allegations of using the conveyance carrying illicit excisable articles, then and then only provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 69 would apply and the Court, Tribunal or other authority shall not have jurisdiction to make order with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal, release of such means of conveyance. Therefore, it was argued that the jeep was not liable to confiscation and for the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, possession of the jeep be delivered to the petitioner and the order of both the lower court be set aside.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the orders of the subordinate courts.

5. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant provisions of Section 69 as under:

"Section 69, What things are liable to confiscation-(1) Whenever an offence punishable under this Act has been

(a) every excisable article in respect of which such offence has been committed.

(b) every still, utensil, implement or apparatus and all materials by means of which such offence has been committed.

(c) every excisable article lawfully imported, transported, manufactured, held in possession or sold along with or in addition any excisable article liable to confiscation under Clause (a)

(d) every receptable, package or covering in which any article as, aforesaid or any materials, still, utensil, impelement or apparatus is or are found together with the other contents (if any) of such receptacle or package; and

(e) every animal, cart, vessel raft or other conveyance used in carrying such receptacle or package, shall be liable to confiscation; Provided that no such animal, cart, vessel, raft or other means of conveyance shall be so liable to confiscation, if the owner thereof, is not the owner of the articles thereby removed and established that he had no reason to believe that such offence was being or was likely to be committed."

6. Section 54-A of the Rajasthan Excise (Amendment) Act, 2000 Act No. 7 of 2000 is as follows:

"54-A. Owner of animal, cart, vessel, raft motor vehicle or any other means of conveyance deemed to be guilty in certain cases-Where any animal, cart, vessel, raft, motor vehicle or any other means of conveyance is used in the commission of an offence under this Act, and is liable to confiscation, the owner thereof, except in case of a motor vehicle or other means of conveyance being owned by the Central Government or any State Government or any of their undertaking, shall be deemed to be guilty of such offence and such owner shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly unless he satisfies the Court that he had no reason to believe that such offence was being or likely to be committed and he had exercised due care in the prevention of the commission of such an offence."

7. Sub-Section (6) of Section 69 of t