JUDGMENT

A. K. PARICHHA, J. — The petitioner has filed this revision against the order dated 12.7.2004 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Banki in G.R. Case No.205 of 2003 rejecting the prayer for re¬lease of the seized scooter in zima of the petitioner.

2. The police staff of Banki Station seized one scooter bearing registration No. OR-06-B-0810 from the possession of one Santosh Behera when the said person was transporting illicit liquor in that vehicle. Prosecution was then launched under Section 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act against the said Santosh Behera and the present petitioner, who is the owner of the scooter.

3. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 457, Cr.P.C. before the learned S.D.J.M., Banki for release of the seized scooter in his favour on the plea that he is the registered owner of the vehicle and is totally unconnected with the alleged offence. He also took the plea that the seized scooter is lying in open air in the police station campus and it will be complete¬ly damaged if it continues to remain like that. Learned S.D.J.M. rejected the said prayer of the petitioner with the observation that the petitioner is involved as an accused in the case and the seized scooter is liable for confiscation. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the illicit liquor was seized from the possession of Santosh Behera and not from the possession of the petitioner and so, there is no legal bar for release of the seized scooter in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that the scooter is lying in open air and its value is deteriorating day by day and to save the vehicle from wastage, it should be given in zima of the petition¬er who is the registered owner of the vehicle.

5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that the seized vehicle is involved in an offence under the Excise Act and is liable for confiscation and so, the learned Magistrate was justified in rejecting the prayer for release of the vehicle.

6. Section 66 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act reads thus:

“66. What things are liable to confiscation:-(1) Whenever an offence has been committed which is punishable under this Act, the excisable article, materials, still, utensil, implement and apparatus in respect of or by means of which such offence has been committed shall be liable for confiscation.

(2) Any excisable article willfully imported, transported, manufactured possession or sold along with, or in addition to; any excisable article which is liable to confiscation under Sub-section (1);

and the receptacles, packages and covering in which any such excisable article as first aforesaid, or any such materials, still, utensil, implement or apparatus as aforesaid, is found;

and the other contents, if any, or such receptacles or packages;

and the animals, carts, vessels, rafts or other conveyances used in carrying the same;

shall likewise be liable to confiscation;

Provided that no animal, cart, vessel, raft or other convey¬ance as aforesaid shall be liable to confiscation unless the owner thereof is proved to have been implicated in the commission of the offence.”

The Section therefore, clearly says that the vehicle involved in commission of an offence, which is punishable under the Act is liable for confiscation, if the owner of the vehicle has been implicated in the commission of the offence. Section 68 of the Act, which speaks about the power to release property liable for confiscation, reads thus:

“68. Power to compound offences and to release property liable to confiscation: (1) The Collector or any Excise Officer specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, not below the rank of Deputy Collector or Superintendent of Excise:-

(a) may, subject to any restrictions imposed by any rules made under Clause (k) of Section 89, accept from any person whose exclusive privilege, licence, permit or pass is liable to be