Pendency of confiscation proceedings should not prevent the release of seized goods or vehicles.

Heard Sri Mohd. Shabbir, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned A. G. A,

2. The vehicle, bearing registration No. UTI 8127, was intercepted carrying 100 gunny bags, each containing 200 pouches of illicit liquor. The persons in volved in the transportation of illicit liquor have been challaned and the vehicle is detained at the police station, C. B. Ganj (Collector Baque Ganj ).

3. The applicant, Krishna Mohan Sharma moved an application before the Magistrate for release of that vehicle, who rejected the same. Against that order the applicant filed criminal revision No. 236of 1997. The revisional Court, considering the legal position, allowed the revision and directed the Magistrate to release the vehicle in favour of the actual owner of the same on his furnishing personal bond and one surety to his satisfaction on an under taking to produce the vehicle as and when required by the Court.

4. The Magistrate did not released the vehicle as directed by the revisional Court. The Collector, Bareilly has served a notice on the applicant and started confis cation proceedings. It may be mentioned that against the said notice, the applicant has filed an appeal before the District Judge which has been allowed to the extent that the Collector shall hear the matter on merit and pass suitable orders. However, he made a direction that till disposal of the matter by the Collector, the vehicle in question shall remain in custody of the Collector. Against only this part of the order, the present application under Sec tion 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed.

5. The learned A. G. A. raised an ob jection that the learned District Judge, Bareilly decided the appeal on civil side, therefore, on the criminal side, under Sec tion 482, Cr. P. C, this application cannot be entertained.

6. I am unable to agree with the sub-mission of the learned A. G. A. because the confiscation proceedings are drawn under Section 72 of the U. P. Excise Act, which is enacted under a Special Act providing confiscation of the vehicle. Therefore, the appeal will certainly lie on the criminal side. Consequently, the application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is maintainable.

7. As far relates to the direction of the Court below that the vehicle shall not be released and shall remain in custody of the Collector till disposal of the matter of confiscation by the Collector, it may be mentioned that this Court in number of cases has observed that pendency of proceeding for confiscation will not be a bar for releasing the seized good vehicle etc. under Section 457, Cr. PC. In this view of the matter, the learned District Judge was not correct in making such direction, particularly when by order dated 28-6-1997 VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Bareilly had already directed the trial Court to release the vehicle on the terms and conditions contained in that order. It is pertinent to mention that while issuing direction in the order dated 28-9-1998, the District Judge has neither distinguished nor deferred from the order of the revisional Court. Therefore, I am of the view that the por tion of the order directing that the vehicle shall remain in the custody of the Collec tor, is not sustainable.

8. The application is, therefore, al lowed. That part of the order directing continuance of the custody of the vehicle in the custody of the Collector till disposal of the matter relating to the confiscation proceedings, pending before the Collec tor, is quashed. The trial Court will pass appropriate order in view of the direction made by the revisional Court in the order dated 28- 6-97, passed in criminal revision No. 236 of 1997, Krishna Mohan Sharma v. State of U. P. Application allowed.

.