JUDGMENT

S. Pujahari, J. - The question of law involved being common to both these applications filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., both of them are taken up together for disposal by a common order as follows:-

2. The petitioner in CRLMC No.79 of 2020 is registered owner of the Honda Activa scooty bearing registration No.OD-19-L-2506 which has been seized by the police for the allegation that the petitioner-owner was found transporting foreign liquor by the said scooty in contravention of the provisions of the Odisha Excise Act (for short "the Act"). For the said offence, Handapa P.S. Case No.118 dated 14.07.2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.344 of 2019 in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Athmallik has been registered under Section 52(a) of the Act against the accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner seeking for release of the seized scooty filed an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. before the learned S.D.J.M., Athmallik and upon rejection of the same at that level, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.1 of 2019 before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Athmallik, who vide his order dated 04.10.2019 has dismissed the same. Assailing the said orders, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

3. Similarly, the petitioner in CRLMC No.92 of 2020 is the registered owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No.OD-09-F-1694 which has been seized by the S.I. of Excise, Sadar Charge, Keonjhar for the accusation that the petitioner was transporting 83 litres of Illicitly Distilled liquor by the said motorcycle. 2(a) C.C. Case No.286 of 2018 has been registered under Section 52 of the Act against the petitioner in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Keonjhar. The petition filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. by the accused-petitioner seeking for release of the seized motorcycle having been dismissed by the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar and the said order of dismissal having been upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar vide the order dated 07.12.2019 in Criminal Revision No.7 of 2019, the petitioner has approached this Court with the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking for custody of the seized motorcycle.

4. I have heard the respective learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases and the learned Addl. Standing counsel for the State.

5. The seized scooty and motorcycle are sought to be released on the grounds, inter-alia, that no confiscation proceeding has been initiated under Section 71 of the Act, and the scooty and motorcycle are lying open being exposed to imminent decay and deterioration. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioners that their involvement in any offence under the Act having not yet been established by the prosecution, and no step having been taken for initiation of any proceeding under Section 71 of the Act, this Court should allow release of the seized scooty and motorcycle in favour of the respective petitioners who admittedly are the registered owners thereof and entitled to possession of the same.

6. Learned Addl. Standing counsel appearing for the State resists the applications on the ground of the provisions of the confiscation being contained in Section 71 of the Act and also on the ground of statutory bar under Section 72 of the Act.

7. In the cases at hand, as reported, the seized scooty and motorcycle having not been produced before the Collector or Authorized Officer, and no step having yet been taken for initiation of confiscation proceeding, the statutory bar as contemplated under Section 72 of the Act has not come to operate. It be also mentioned here that Sections 71 and 72 of the Act which are self contained provisions to deal with the seized properties, virtually operate as a bar on the exercise of the powers of the Magistrate under Chapter XXXIV of the Cr.P.C. But, the question, that is very often posed before the Magistrate as well as this Court is, what would be the fate of the seized vehicles or conveyances when the Officers as indicate