Hon’ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar, J.—Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and orders dated 27.2.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Varanasi in Criminal Misc. Application No. 47 of 2016 (State v. Rajiv Kumar Singh) in case Crime No. 358 of 2015, under Section 60 of Excise Act, PS- Cholapur, District-Varanasi whereby the application of the revisionist for the release of the vehicle was rejected.

3. The relevant facts are that the revisionist claimed himself to be the registered owner of the vehicle No. U. P. 61-H 4473. The vehicle was found to be carrying 102 bottle of the illicit liquor in 30 open packets. The vehicle was involved as a carrier. An application under Section 60 of the Excise Act was moved by the revisionist before the learned ACJM, Varanasi for the release of the vehicle. An objection was raised on behalf of the State of U.P. that since the confiscation proceedings under Section 72 of the U. P. Excise Act is pending before the collector Varanasi, therefore, the said vehicle should not be released.

4. The learned ACJM vide his order dated 27.2.2016 rejected the application of the release of the said vehicle of the applicant-revisionist. Aggrieved against this order the present revision has been preferred.

5. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the only ground for the rejection of the release of the vehicle has been mentioned in the impugned order is that as confiscation proceedings under Section 72 of the U.P. Excise Act is pending, therefore, the learned Magistrate has rejected the application which is not in consonance with the spirit of the law as laiddown in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar v. State of Gujrat, AIR 2003 SC 638 and Nand v. State of U.P., 1996 Law Suit (All) 423.

6. Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist and submits that since the proceedings under Section 72 of the U.P. Excise Act for the confiscation of the vehicle is pending, the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the application of the revisionist for the release of the vehicle.

7. Having considered the submissions raised by both the parties, the legal proposition in AIR 2003 SC 638 (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 17 has held as under:

“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 bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of application for return of such vehicles.”

8. In 1996 Law Suit (All) 423 (supra) this Court has observed that pendency of the confiscation proceedings under Section 72 of the U.P. Excise Act is not a bar for release of the vehicle which is required for the trial under Section 60 of the U.P. Excise Act. It has been further observed by this Court in para 7 as under :

“I think it is not proper to allow the truck to be damaged by remaining stationed at police station. Admittedly, the ownership of the truck is not disputed. The State of Uttar Pradesh does not claim its ownership. Therefore, I think it will be proper and in the larger interest of public as well as the revisionist that the revisionist gives a Bank guarantee of Rs. 2 lakhs before the C.J.M., Kanpur Dehat and files a bond that he shall be producing the truck as and when needed by the criminal Courts or the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, and he shall not make any changes nor any variation in the truck.”

9. As per the legal propositions aforesaid mentioned, admittedly the revisionist-applicant claimed himself to be the registered owner of the seized vehicle. It also transpires that the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person, 102 bottle