1. - By way of instant petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., the State of Rajasthan through the Excise Commissioner has challenged the order dated 5.3.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sadul Shahar, whereby he rejected the application filed by the District Excise Officer, Sri Ganganagar to transfer the amount of Rs. one lac in their account deposited by the first respondent-Ram Singh pursuant to the order of this Court passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2118/2001.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 31.3.2001, a jeep bearing registration No. 13-C-6136 was found illegally carrying pouches of country liquor. The vehicle was intercepted by the police as the liquor was being carried without permit or license. A case was registered for the offence under section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. It is relevant to state that the State Legislature has promulgated the Rajasthan Excise (Amendment) Ordinance, 2000, whereby Section 54-A has been inserted and Section 69 of the Act has also been amended and as per amended sub-section (6) of Section 69 of the Act, it has been provided that whenever any means of conveyance is seized in connection with commission of an offence under the Act, the Excise Commissioner or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government shall have, and notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, any Court, Tribunal or other authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make order with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal, release of such conveyance. In view of the amended provision, the jurisdiction of the Court has been taken away with respect to delivery of the conveyance seized in connection with commission of an offence under the Act. The constitutional validity of the said provision came to be challenged by various parties before this Court.

3. The Additional Commissioner (Excise) in accordance with the provisions of Section 69(4) of the Act after hearing owner of the vehicle and before ordering confiscation, gave an option to the owner to pay in lieu of confiscation a fine of Rs. Two lacs by order dated 18.5.2001. %.e first respondent challenged the said order by way of petition which came to be registered as D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2118/2001. In fact, number of writ petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of Section 69 of the Act. The identical interim relief was granted to the first respondent in the aforesaid writ petition as follows :

"The confiscated vehicle bearing No. RJ-13-C-6136 which is involved in this matter, shall be released to the petitioner, on his depositing Rs. 1,00,000/- by cash and furnishing security for the remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- within two weeks from today. The petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will not alienate or encumber the vehicle till the case is disposed of and shall also undertake to produce the vehicle, and make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the authorities concerned."

4. The time period for depositing the amount was extended by order dated 12.7.2001 for a further period of ten days. The first respondent instead of depositing the amount with the District Excise Officer, deposited the amount of Rs. one lac and security before the Judicial Magistrate, Sadul Shahar. The deposit was accepted by the Court and the vehicle was released by order dated 16.7.2001. It has been brought to my notice that irrespective of the fact that the order of the Division Bench was brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate and it was contended that he had no jurisdiction to release the vehicle but he accepted the deposit and released the vehicle. The writ petition ultimately came to be dismissed by the order of the Division Bench dated 9.1.2002. After dismissal of the writ petition, the accused owner was required to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. one lac, which the learned Magistrate directed to