The court considered the lack of involvement of the owner in the illicit activities and the potential damage to the seized property in reaching its decision.

This is a Criminal Revision against the order dated 25th May, 1992 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, by which, the application of the applicant-revisionist for the release of Truck No. M P. 07/4865 was rejected.

2. The facts giving rise to this criminal revision briefly stated are that the aforesaid Truck No. M. P. 07/4365 belongs to the applicant-revisionist. This truck was intercepted and seized by the Flying Squad of the police attached to the Sales Tax Department, district Etawah, on 26th February, 1992, at 12 noon, near District Jail, Etawah. After the interception, the Inspector concerned recovered illicit liquor from the truck and prepared a recovery memo to the effect on the spot itself. The Inpector took the aforesaid truck to the Police Station Kotwali, Etawah, where he lodged a first information report on the basis of the recovery memo prepared by him on the spot. It was on the basis of the recovery memo that a case under Sections 60/72 of Excise Act against Jayanti Singh was registered. The Excise Inspector concerned reported the matter to the District Magistrate for initiation of proceedings under Section 72 of Excise Act. Consequently two cases-12 of 1992-State v. Harjeet Singh, and 13 of 1992-State v. Shrikant Sharma, were initiated. These cases are still in progress.

3. The applicant-revisionist moved an application on 25th March, 1992 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, for the release of the aforesaid truck in his favour. The Chief Judicial Magistrate ultimately rejected that application. Consequently the applicant-revisionist preferred a revision being Revision No. 99 of 1992-Jai Prakash Sharma v. State. That revision was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/special Judge (E. C. Act) vide his order dated 12th May, 1992 and remanded the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah with certain directions.

4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having consi dered the evidence on the record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after the remand of the case, rejected the application of the applicant-revisionist, vide his order dated 25th May, 1992. Aggrieved, the revisionist preferred this revision against the same.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record, Truck No. M. P. 07/4865 belongs to the revisionist. Jai Prakash Sharma This is not in dispute. The revisionist had no knowledge or

information of the liquor alleged to have been recovered from the truck. He is not a party to the aforesaid two cases pending before the District Magistrate, Etawah, nor has any notice been issued to him the revisionist Jai Prakash Sharma, therein. The mere pendency of the confiscation proceedings is no bar to the release of the truck. The matter is still under investigation. The truck lying at the police station will, if not released, yet damaged, ruined and rusted, not only this, but it will also ultimately become unuseable and unserviceable for various obvious reasons. The learned Counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon : (i) Kamal Jeet Singh v. State, 1986 UP Crl R 50 ; (ii) Mohd. Hanif v. State of U. P. , 1983 UP Crl R 239 ; (iii) Sri Narain v. State of V. P. , 1987 ACC page 421 and (iv) Jagat Singh v. Stale of U. P. , 1991 ACC 561, in support of his contentions.

6, In view of the observations made in the above cases and in view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Truck No. M. P. 07/4865 is released in favour of the revisionist on his furnishing a personal bond for Rs. 1,20,000 (one lac, twenty thousands" and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah. The revisionist is directed to make the truck available as and when required during investigation of the case and thereafter in the Court concerned.

Revision allowed.

.