The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Magistrate has jurisdiction to release a seized vehicle pending investigation or trial, notwithstanding pending confiscation proceedings before the Collector under the U.P. Excise Act.

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred from an order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau, dated 13.06.2018 rejecting an application for release of a Bolero MUV under Section 451(1) of the Act, seized in connection with Case Crime no.50 of 2018, under Sections 60, 63, 72 of the U.P. Excise Act, and Sections 272, 273, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Doharighat, District Mau.

2. The revisionist is admittedly the registered owner of a Bolero MUV bearing registration no. UP 53 AF 2145. The aforesaid vehicle is hereinafter referred to as the vehicle. The vehicle was seized by the police on 01.03.2018 under circumstances that the police received information from a secret informer that at the brick kiln of a certain Kripa Shankar Rai, illegal country-made adulterated liquor was being brewed and that a Bolero MUV was parked there, with some ready liquor that would soon be ferried away to some place for sale. Acting on the aforesaid tip off, the police party raided the brick kiln aforesaid, and, found the driver seated in the vehicle parked at the brick kiln with its engine idling. The police party are said to have in a swift action surrounded the vehicle, in consequence whereof the driver and the other man on board escaped but two others who were loading ready liquor onto the vehicle, were arrested. The aforesaid persons revealed their names to be Mata Deen Yadav and Pankaj Gupta. The vehicle was also seized besides the liquor, as claimed by the police.

3. The revisionist applied to have the vehicle released to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau, who rejected application for release on ground that since confiscation proceeding in relation to the vehicle under Section 72(2) of the U.P. Excise Act were in progress, it is not appropriate in the interest of justice to release the vehicle in favour of the revisionist.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has pointed out that the revisionist is the registered owner of the vehicle. He was also implicated in the crime falsely but after investigation, a charge sheet has been filed against Mata Deen Yadav and Pankaj Gupta, not against him.

5. It is urged that the police have falsely implicated the revisionist and that fact stands vindicated by the revisionist not being found involved during investigation. He submits, therefore, that the story about the vehicle of which he is the registered owner being involved is patently false. The vehicle is now parked at the Police Station since 01.03.2018 and is deteriorating by the day due to disuse, the same being not employed for any purpose. It is argued that the view taken by the Magistrate that pending confiscation proceedings before the Collector under Section 72(2) of the U.P. Excise Act, it is not appropriate to release the vehicle is manifestly illegal. The issue regarding the authority to release a vehicle relating to which confiscation proceedings are pending before the Collector under the Excise Act, pending investigation or trial by the Magistrate for an offence under the said Act, based on the same facts that have led to initiation of confiscation proceedings, would be shortly addressed.

6. The general law relating to release of vehicles seized in connection with a crime pending investigation or trial by the Magistrate, in the most universal of its dimension has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, 2002 (10) SCC 283. In the said decision of their Lordships the issue of release of vehicles seized in connection with crimes and parked at police stations has been dealt with and answered thus:

“17. 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 o