S. Manikumar, J.

Being aggrieved by the order made in G.F.I.R.No.3253 of 2014, in G-3 Cr.No.1368 of 2014, dated 24.11.2014, on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8, the present criminal revision case is filed.

2. Case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the vehicle, Auto, bearing Registration No. TN 01 AW 7079, purchased under an Hire Purchase Agreement, with Syndicate Bank, Aminjikari, Chennai. Original documents are in possession of the Bank. Alleging that about 190 Brandy Bottles were found in the vehicle on 01.10.2014, the vehicle has been seized. The petitioner has filed G.F.I.R.No.3253 of 2014 in G.3.Cr.No.1368 of 2014, under Sections 451 r/w. 457 Cr.P.C., for interim custody of the vehicle. Reliance has been placed on a decision made in G. Chandramohan v. State by Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Kumbakonam, reported in 2005 (1) LW (Crl.) 93. Before the lower Court, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer, on the grounds that already a notice, under Section 14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act (in short "TNP Act"), has been issued for confiscation of the vehicle. Placing reliance on a decision made in David v. Sakthivel, Inspector of Police reported in 2010 (1) LW (Crl.) 129 : 2010 (1) MLJ (Crl.) 929, vide order, dated 24.11.2014, the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, has dismissed the petition.

3. Assailing the correctness of the said order, Mr.M.Anandaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that notwithstanding the proceedings initiated for confiscation under Section 14(4) of the TNP Act, power of the Court under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., has not taken away for directing release of the vehicle.

4. By inviting the attention of this Court to Section 14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and placing reliance on the decisions, Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, objected to the relief sought for. He submitted that when confiscation proceedings have already been initiated, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for interim custody, under the Code. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

5. Before adverting to the rival contentions, this Court deems it fit to consider the decisions, relied on by both parties.

6. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rameshwar Rathod, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1849 : 1990 (4) SCC 21, the respondent therein was the owner of a truck, which was seized by the Police, on 10th December, 1974, for the alleged contravention of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The respondent therein made applications, for return of the vehicle, on furnishing security. When the same was rejected by the Courts below, he made applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to the High Court to quash the order of the Courts below and the order of the District Collector from proceeding further, in pursuance of the notice, issued by him, under Section 68 of the Act, for confiscation of the vehicle or in the alternative, to direct the District Judicial Magistrate to dispose of the applications in accordance with law. Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, was amended in Act 30 of 1974. Questions addressed by the High Court, were (1) whether Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, as amended by the Amendment Act No. 30 of 1974, was prospective or retrospective? (2) whether on the facts and circumstances, the criminal Court had jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 523 read with section 516A of the Criminal Procedure Code for the return of the vehicle seized by the Police, pending final decision of the criminal case? On the aspect, as to whether, the Court has the power to order for return of the vehicle, in view of the amended provisions of Sections 6A and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the Supreme Court, held as follows:

"On a consideration of the relevant authorities, the High Court