JUDGMENT

PRADIP MOHANTY, J. — The petitioner is said to be the registered owner of the Maruti Van bearing registration No.OR 05 M 0561. She challenges the legality of the order dated 15.07.2004 of the J.M.F.C. (R), Cuttack in G.R. Case No.631 of 2004 reject¬ing her petition filed under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. and the judgment dated 19.08.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge I/C, Cuttack in Criminal Revision No.53 of 2004 confirming the aforesaid order of the learned J.M.F.C. (R), Cuttack.

2. On 01.07.2004 near the O.T.M. Bazar of Coudwar the Tangi Police found the aforesaid vehicle transporting Aluminium Conduc¬tors weighing 3.10 quintals in violation of the provisions of the Orissa Electric Supply-Line Material (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”). The materials were seized and Tangi P.S. Case No.88 of 2004 under Sections 379, 411 and 34, I.P.C. read with Sec.3 of the Act corresponding to the G.R. Case, re¬ferred to above, was initiated. Subsequently, on 01.07.2004 the vehicle in question was also seized. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 457 Cr.P.C. before the J.M.F.C.(R), Cut¬tack in the said G.R. Case for release of the vehicle in her zima. The learned J.M.F.C. after perusing the F.I.R. and other relevant record by his order dated 15.07.2004 rejected the prayer on the ground that since in view of the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, the Authorized Officer is empowered to initiate a confiscation proceeding, he has no jurisdiction to entertain the said application. Against that order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack, which was registered as Criminal Revision No.53 of 2004. The learned Ses¬sions Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the revision and confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate holding that Section 6(3) of the Act ousts the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to deal with the seized property as it provides that the police has no other option than to make over the property seized to the Authorised Officer notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the Authorised Officer alone is competent to deal with the application for release of the seized property.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the legality of the impugned orders contending that the special statute, namely, the Act, does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court in the matter of release of seized property. Therefore, the Courts below committed gross illegality in reject¬ing the prayer for release of the seized vehicle.

4. Mr. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contends that in view of the specific provisions in the Act, more particularly, Sections 6, 7 and 9 thereof, the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court must be held to be excluded in relation to matters for which provisions have been made in the special statute itself.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of this Court in Kailash Chandra Sahu -v- State of Orissa,* (2001) 20 OCR 341. In that decision, however, it has been held that the power to release the property lies with the Authorised Officer under Section 6(3) of the Act and the police authorities have no other option than to make over the property seized to the Authorized Officer notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Chapter-XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of the property. Sections 451 to 459 of the Cr.P.C. deal with the powers of the Court in the matter of disposal of proper¬ty. Any order to be passed by the Criminal Court in relation to disposal of property must be under one or the other of the afore¬said sections depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 451 enables a Magistrate to provide for interim custody of any seized property produced before him in course of an enquiry or trial. Section 452 provides for disposal after the tria