Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—This criminal misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 12.2.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhror in Criminal Revision No. 7/2004 whereby the vehicle No. RJ-14-26-2205 has been released in favour of the non-applicant on furnishing supardgi of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

2. The short facts of the case are that one FIR No. 21/2004 dated 27.1.2004 was registered by Excise Inspector, Behror and the impugned vehicle was seized under that FIR. The respondent submitted application for release of the vehicle bearing No. RJ 14-26-2205. The learned magistrate has rejected the application on the ground that after amendment in the Rajasthan Excise Act by incorporating Section 69(6) of the Act, the jurisdiction for releasing the vehicle now does not vest with the trial Court. The respondent preferred revision petition and the revisional court has released the vehicle to respondent. Hence this petition.

3. The contention of the present petitioner is that the learned revisional court has not considered the provisions and passed the order of release which is contrary to law and illegal. According to Section 69 of the Act, the jurisdiction to make order with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal of the vehicles are with the Excise Commissioner. The amendment starts with the non-obstante clause, meaning thereby that all other acts and laws have been excluded by which the vehicle could have been released by the courts and the order of the revisional court is unsustainable.

"Section 69(6) of the Rajasthan Excise Act reads as under:

"69(6). Whenever any means of conveyance as referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) is seized in connection with commission of an offence under this 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 and 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."

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the objects and reasons of the Rajasthan Excise (Amendment) Act, 2000 which reads as under:-

"The incidence of unauthorised transportation of excisable articles had increased in recent past and it was noticed that owners of such vehicles were indulging in these activities with impunity. It was also noticed that the vehicles indulging in such transportation even after seizure for commission of the offence were got released from courts and were again used for unauthorised transportation of excisable articles. To check this menace, it was considered necessary to provide that if any means of conveyance is used in commission of offence under the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, then the same shall be liable to be confiscated by order of the Excise Commissioner or the Officer not below the rank of District Excise Officer as may be authorised by the State Govt. in this behalf and the owner of such a means of con-veyance shall be deemed to be guilty of offence for the commission of which, the said means of conveyance was used. For achieving these purposes, Sec. 69 of the Rajasthan Excise Act was proposed to be suitable amended and a new Sec. 54-A was proposed to be inserted."

5. The objects and reasons of this Act goes to show that to check the menace it was considered necessary that if any means of conveyance is used under the Rajasthan Excise Act, then the same shall be liable to be confiscated by the order of the Excise Commissioner and the Act was proposed to be suitably amended.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that regarding other special Acts, the controversy has been dealt with by the Apex Court and has relied on the judgment delivered in the case of Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise, Nagercoil vs. R. Sunder (1993 Cr.L.J. 956) where legal position embodied in Custom

Click Here to Read the rest of this document