- (1.) KUNDAN Singh, J. This revision has been filed against the order dated 8-11-1993 passed by the Session Judge, Agra, in Criminal Revision No. 568 of 1993 whereby the order dated 20-10-1993 passed by the Chief Judicial Magis trate, Agra, directing release of the Ambassador Car No. U. P. 80-6283 was set aside. Ambassador Car was taken into custody by the police of P. S. Sadar Bazar, Agra on 25-9-1993 and 144 bottles of foreign liquor were seized and Om Prakash alias Omi was arrested in case under Section 7/63 of Excise Act. The applicant moved an application before the C. J. M. , Agra for release of the said vehicle in his favour with the allegation that he is registered owner of the vehicle, which was taken by the accused Om Prakash alias Omi for taking part in a ceremony arranged by one of his relation but the police has arrested Om Prakash alias Omi and seized the Ambassador Car and foreign liquor. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties directed the vehicle to be released in favour of the applicant on his furnishing surety in the sum or Rs. 1,00,000 and required him to produce the vehicle in Court whenever required. The State filed a revision against that order before Sessions Judge, Agra, who on 8-11-1993 set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking the view that it cannot be said that owner oi' the vehicle had no know ledge that illicit liquor was being carried in the said vehicle.
(2.) HEARD the counsel for the parties. Requisite copy of the trial Court's order dated 18-10-1993 passed by the A. C. J. M. , Agra has been filed today. The State Counsel has not filed any counter-affidavit in compliance with the order dated 13- 12-1993. Learned Counsel for the applicant urged that the proceedings under Section 72 of Excise Act for confiscation of the vehicle are pending before the District Magistrate and those proceeding have not yet been concluded. The learned Counsel for the applicant further contended that this Court has taken the view in various cases that during the pendency of the confiscation procceedings before the District Magistrate the vehicle can be released and in support of that argument he relied upon a decision in the case Jai Prakash Sharma v. State of U. P. reported in 1993 J1c 81: 1993 ACC 6. Learned State Counsel could not point out anything to show that the property could not be released during the confiscation proceedings pending before the District Magistrate, under Section 72 of the Excise Act. I do not find that the order passed by learned Magistrate suffered from any illegality or impropriety which called on an interference to the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge was not justified in setting aside the order of the Magistrate. During confiscation pro ceedings the property can be released in favour of the applicant on his furnish ing adequate sureties and at this stage it cannot be presumed that the owner of the vehicle had knowledge of the offence committed by other person. He was not present at the time when the vehicle was taken into custody and the illicit liquor was recovered.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, the revision is allowed, the order dated 8-11-1993 passed by the Sessions Judge is set aside and the C. J. M,, Agra is directed to release the Car in terms of order dated 20-10-1993. Revision allowed. .;