D.N.JOSHI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petition has been filed against the revisional order dated 24.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bikaner in criminal revision No. 70/2000, whereby the he upheld the order dated 31.10.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lunkaransar in connection with F.I.R. No. 95/2001 of the Police Station, Mahajan refusing to release the petitioner's jeep No. RJ -21 -C -3812. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that under Section 69(e) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, the jeep was not liable to confiscation. As per his argument, the jeep was not carrying such receptacle or package in respect of which offence under the Excise Act has been committed. As per allegations of the prosecution, so called jeep was escorting the truck, in which the so called illicit liquor was being carried. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further argued that under newly inserted Section 54 -A of the Act, the owner shall only be deemed to be guilty of the offence when the conveyance is used in commission of this offence and this act of confiscation is on the allegations of using the conveyance carrying illicit excisable articles, then and then only provisions of Sub -section (6) of Section 69 would apply and the Court, Tribunal or other authority shall not have jurisdiction to make order with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal, release of such means of conveyance. Therefore, it was argued that the jeep was not liable to confiscation and for the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, possession of the jeep be delivered to the petitioner and the order of both the lower court be set aside.
(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor has supported the orders of the subordinate courts.;