ORDER

Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner & Learned Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the impugned orders.

The Petitioner has been aggrieved by the Order Dated 17.5.2010 passed by Learned S.D.J.M., Deogarh in C.M.C. No.30 of 2010 (arising out of C.T. Case No.247 of 2010) rejecting the Petitioner’s application u/s. 457, Cr.P.C. for interim release of his Mini Truck bearing Registration No.OR-15-G-7255 which order has been confirmed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deogarh in Criminal Revision No.5 of 2010.

The Mini Truck in question was seized by the police in Reamal P.S. Case No.60 of 2010 for alleged involvement in trans¬portation of Mahua flower without any authority or license which is an offence under Bihar & Orissa Excise Act. The Petitioner, who is undisputedly the registered owner of the Mini Truck in question filed application u/s. 457, Cr.P.C. for release of the said truck, which has been rejected mainly on the ground that since investigation is going on it would not be proper to release the vehicle & that the Petitioner may move the Collector & Dis¬trict Magistrate who has the owner to make confiscation of the vehicle in terms of Sections 66 & 67 of the Bihar & Orissa Excise Act, 1915. The Petitioner challenged the said order in Criminal Revision No.5 of 2010 which has been dismissed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deogarh on similar grounds & further holding that the revision was not maintainable.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the Petitioner; who is the registered owner of the vehicle in question is not an accused in the aforesaid P.S. Case, it is not liable for confiscation by the Collector & District Magistrate & therefore, the Learned S.D.J.M., should not have rejected the petition, in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujurat : (2003) 24 OCR (SC) 444. He further submits that the value & utility of the vehicle is deteriorating day by day as the vehicle is lying exposed to sun & rain.

The Learned Standing Counsel fairly submits that the Peti¬tioner is not an accused in the aforesaid P.S. Case.

Under Sub-Section (1) of Section 66 of the Bihar & Orissa Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) whenever any offence under the Act has been committed the excisable articles, the materials, still, utensil, implement & apparatus by means of which the offence has been committed shall be liable to confisca¬tion. Sub-Section (2) of Section 66 makes the animals, carts, vessels, rafts or other conveyances used in carrying the excisa¬ble article etc. also liable to confiscation. However, the provi¬so appended under Sub-section (2) makes an exception stating that animal, cart or conveyance shall not be liable to confiscation unless the owner thereof has been implicated in the commission of offence.

In the instant case, since, the Petitioner who is undisput¬edly the registered owner of the Mini Truck in question, has admittedly not been implicated as an accused in the police case the Mini Truck is not liable for confiscation u/s. 66(2) of the Act. Therefore, neither, the S.D.J.M., Deogarh nor the Additional Sessions Judge, Deogarh was justified in refusing to pass order for release of the Mini Truck in question. The aforesaid view of mine also gets support from the decision of this Court in the case of Soubhagya Kumar Panda v. State of Orissa reported in (2003) 25 OCR 840 where it was observed that petition u/s. 457, Cr.P.C. is maintainable before the Magistrate sitting on trial of the case, if the owner of the vehicle in question is not impli¬cated in the offences alleged.

In the case of Sunderbhai (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the petition u/s. 457, Cr.P.C. observed thus :

“In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate