Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.

2. By means of the instant revision, the order dated 15.3.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ballia, in Case No. 4610 of 2012, State v. Amar Singh, arising out of Case Crime No. 296 of 2012 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and 60 Excise Act, Police Station Bansdeeh Road, District Ballia has been challenged whereby the prayer for release of the vehicle bearing number M.P.13 GA/1842 has been refused.

3. Before proceedings further with the case, it would be appropriate to give a brief sketch of the facts of this case as discernible from the record. On 21.10.2012 around 9:40 p.m., the complainant Arun Kumar Dubey, S.H.O., Police Station Bansdeeh Road, District Ballia, seized the vehicle bearing number M.P.13 GA/1842 and recovered 625 boxes containing 30000 bottles of liquor, arresting the four persons. The First Information Report was lodged very same day at 23:45 hours at the aforesaid police station at Case Crime No. 296 of 2012 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and 60 Excise Act.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the matter was investigated into and charge-sheet was filed after completion of the investigation. During course of the proceedings, the revisionist moved an application for release of the aforesaid vehicle claiming himself to be owner of the vehicle but the prayer was erroneously refused.

5. Learned counsel further added that the revisionist is not an accused in this case and the aforesaid seized vehicle has been unnecessarily detained since 21.10.2012 at the concerned police station and there is every possibility that the vehicle will be rusted out, if not released.

6. Learned AGA has submitted that confiscation proceeding for the vehicle is underway before the District Magistrate, Ballia which has been accepted by the learned counsel for the revisionist by filing supplementary-affidavit. Questionnaire has been annexed as annexure No. SA-I to the supplementary-affidavit filed in support of the instant revision whereby it has been brought to the notice of this Court that confiscation proceedings are pending, as yet.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that so far as his personal information is concerned, things have not yet been concluded at the end of the District Magistrate, Ballia.

8. At this stage, a query was made to the learned AGA as to what purpose will be served, if the vehicle in question is allowed to remain detained at the concerned police station. Learned AGA is kept silent.

9. At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionist laid stress to the effect that pendency of proceeding before the District Magistrate will not divest the learned lower Court of its power to pass orders for release of the vehicle. Clear cut guidelines have been issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003 (46) ACC 223 (SC) and Virendra Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008 (60) ACC 481.

10. In view of his contention, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Rama Shankar Yadav v. State of U.P., 2010 (1) ACR 907 and has submitted that elaborate and specific guidelines have been given to the lower Court for release of the vehicle seized and detained as such in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003 (46) ACC 223 (SC) and Virendra Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008 (60) ACC 481.

11. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that Hon’ble Apex Court has issued and specific categorical guidelines for release of the vehicle. Apart from above power for release of vehicles can be well exercised after following procedure prescribed under Section 451 Cr.P.C.

12. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is possessing all the relevant papers of the vehicle in ques