The Criminal Court has no jurisdiction to release a vehicle seized under S. 16 (3) of the Adhiniyam. The remedy for the owner of the vehicle is to approach the Taxation Authority or any officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf under S. 16 (4) of the Adhiniyam and, if aggrieved by the order of the Taxation Authority, to file an appeal under S. 20 of the Adhiniyam.

( 1 ) "no light," said Milton in Paradise Lost, "but rather darkness visible. " But Courts, determined to secure harmony and spurn antinomy between law and justice, search "light" in lexicon of law in a surge of an urge to say "no darkness, but only light visible. " In such determination, resting on linchpin of epicerastic exercise, Courts bear in mind that "law" has to enchisel "flaw" and ensure "flow" in doctrinal direction. After all, no one can have a droit in recourse to opposite course. This inbred intendment aptly takes us to the issue to be unknotted.

( 2 ) THE issue is manifest conflict in two decisions of equal vigour.

( 3 ) ONE of us (Hon'ble Shukla, J.), sitting single, found, while hearing this criminal revision presented by the State under S. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'code') against the order dated 24-7-1996, rendered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore (Motor Vehicle Magistrate) in O. A. No. 11471/96, thereby directing release in purported exercise of power under S. 457 of the Code, of Passenger Bus No. MP 09-S-1820 plying between Gwalior and Indore and seized and detained by the Taxation Authority (the Transport Inspector) on 18-7-1996 in terms of S. 16 (3) of the M. P. Motor Yan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 (for short 'adhiniyam') on the fulcrum of non-possession of valid permit, as required under S. 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and non-payment of tax leviable under the Act, on Supratnama of 9 lakhs, supported by surety of equal value, on specified conditions, discordant sound in two Divisional Bench decisions One : Brahmanand v. State of M. P. (1994) 1 MPWN 126 decided by Hon'ble Kokje and Shukla, JJ. holding in M. P. No. 1388/92 on 2-12-1993 that "a Criminal Court of Competent jurisdiction would, therefore, have jurisdiction to grant temporary custody of the vehicle under the Code of Criminal Procedure" even when seized and detained under S. 16 (3) of the Adhiniyam and two :durgaprasad v. M. N. Gupta (F. A. No. 116/1971 decided by Hon'ble G. P. Singh and C. P. Sen, JJ. holding in F. A. arising out of suit for damages on 26-2-1975 that "a Magistrate has no jurisdiction under that provision to release the vehicle seized under S. 18 (3) of the Act" (M. P. Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Goods) Act, 1962, repealed by Adhiniyam of 1991 in terms of S. 26) and forwarded the case on 24-2-1997 to be laid before Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute Full Bench to resolve the conflict and opine as to which of the two sounds in regard to "yes" or "no" to the jurisdiction of Criminal Court has sonority to law i. e. Adhiniyam vis-a-vis Code.

( 4 ) AS noted in proceedings of 24-2-1997, tax, as leviable, is said to have been paid by the non-applicant (owner of the vehicle) after securing release on Supratnama and Surety. This purpose, as envisaged under S. 16 (3) of Adhiniyam, i. e. seizure and detention for "the realisation of tax due," thus, appears to have been achieved.

( 5 ) THE issue before us is to determine as to whether or not Criminal Court has jurisdiction to release vehicle, even temporarily on Supratnama under provisions of the Code when seized by the Taxation Authority or by any other officer, authorised by the State Government in this behalf, on the ground of specified faults and defaults and thus, to decide as to which of the aforesaid two decisions laiddown the correct law and should hold the field hereafter? The allied question is whether order dated 24-7-1996 and consequent Supratnama are, irrespective of determination of the aforesaid issue, liable to be incinerated at this distance of time after undisputed payment of tax as was due? The submission on 24-2-1976 before single Bench was that the issue, after discharge of liability of tax, had become academical. True it is that law cannot run smooth course in State of tenebrosity. When there is a question of enormity of absence or presence of jurisdiction of Criminal Court, larger Bench