JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble B.K. Narayana, J.

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant in revision and Smt. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

2. Factual matrix of the matter is being quickly summed up as hereunder :-

Virendra Gupta is admittedly the registered owner of a Bolero MUV bearing registration no. UP 53 AF 2145, hereinafter referred to as the vehicle. The vehicle was seized by the police on 01.03.2018 pursuant to information received from a police informer that in the brick kiln of one Kripa Shankar Rai, illicit country-made adulterated liquor was being brewed and that a Bolero MUV was parked there with a consignment of liquor that would soon by transported to some place for sale. Acting on the aforesaid tip off, the police party raided the aforesaid brick kiln and found the driver seated in the vehicle parked in the brick kiln. The police party surrounded the vehicle although the driver and the other men sitting inside the vehicle managed to escape but two others who were loading ready liquor onto the vehicle, were arrested. The arrested persons disclosed their names as Mata Deen Yadav and Pankaj Gupta. The vehicle along with the consignment of liquor was also seized.

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau rejected the application on the ground that since confiscation proceeding pertaining to the vehicle u/s 72 (2) of the U.P. Excise Act hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' were in progress, it was not proper in the interest of justice to release the vehicle in favour of the revisionist.

3. Aggrieved, the applicant assailed the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau before this Court by means of this application in revision. Learned counsel for the applicant apart from challenging the order impugned on numerous grounds, specifically assailed the impugned order on the ground that since the applicant was registered owner of the vehicle which was seized during the investigation of a pending criminal case, the same was liable to be released in his favour keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, 2002 (10) SCC 283. Learned counsel for the applicant apart from placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai (supra), also cited two other judgments before the learned Single Judge which are as follows :

(1) Nand vs. State of U.P., 1997 (1) AWC 41

(2) Rajiv Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, 2017 (5) ADJ 351

4. However, the learned Single Judge upon noticing the conflicting views taken by the two learned Single Judges who had decided Nand (supra) and Rajiv Kumar Singh (supra) on one hand and another learned Single Judge who had decided the case of Ved Prakash vs. State of U.P., 1982 AWC 167 All on the issue of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate/Court to release any property which is the subject matter of confiscation proceedings pending before the Collector u/s 72 of the U.P. Excise Act in the exercise of his power u/s 451, 452 or 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the decision in Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) was an authority on the general law regarding release of vehicle seized in connection with any criminal case but as the same had not dealt with issue whether the Magistrate had power to release anything in respect of which confiscation proceedings u/s 72 of the 'Act' were pending whereas the Apex Court in the case of State (G.N.C.T. of Delhi) vs. Narender, (2014) 13 SCC 100 had clearly held that the Magistrate will not have any power to release any vehicle seized in a criminal case u/s 451 or 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of which confiscation proceedings under the Delhi Excise Act were pending before the Collector in view of the specific power embodied in Section 67 of the Act referred this matter to larger Bench by his order dated 31.08.2018. The question referred to us is being reproduced hereinbelow :-

“Whether pending confiscation proceedings under Secti