JUDGMENT B.B. Misra, J. - This is an application under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. praying that truck No. U.P.A. 9867 be released in favour of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid vehicle. It gave the truck to one Sri Surajpal under hire purchase agreement with the stipulation that he would ply it after obtaining the necessary permit and after paying the taxes due. The taxes not having been paid, the vehicle was seized by the Transport Department and kept in the custody of the police. Both the petitioner and Sri Surajpal applied for the release of the vehicle and the petitioner even offered to give cash security as the imposition of tax was challenged, but the Magistrate did not release the vehicle and pass the following orders: "ORDER - I have seen the police report dated September 24,1968. The truck in question is reported not to have been taken into custody by police in connection with any offence. It has been seized by A.R.T.O. Head quarters Lucknow towards recovery of road tax etc. I, therefore, have no jurisdiction to pass order on the application of applicant. Papers are therefore filed. Applicant may seek remedy from Transport authorities. Sd. N. R. Nim, As. D.M. Mainpuri, September 27, 1968." "In the Court of Regional Transport Magistrate, Agra. ORDER - This is an application for the release of vehicle No. U.P.A. 9867 Public Carrier which has been seized by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (E.) Hq. under Sec. 15 Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and under Section 16 of the U.P. Motor Goods (Malkar) Adhiniyam The A.P.P. has opposed this application and pointed out that this vehicle has been plying without the payment of taxes since January 1, 1968 and the road tax amounting to Rs. 1500 along with the composition fee are due. I have heard the parties. The vehicle has been seized and detained for non-payment of taxes and as such the question of its release by the court till the taxes have not been paid, does not arise. The counsel for the applicant has also submitted that a cash security may be taken in lieu of the payment of taxes and the vehicle be released. There is no such provision in law. The counsel for the applicant has also submitted that a cash security may be taken in lieu of the payment of taxes and the vehicle be released. There is no such provision in law. Moreover, this court is not concerned with the assessment of Taxes and as such as pointed by the A.P.P., he may apply to Tax Officer in this connection, if he chooses so. Sd. S. P. Srivastava, Regional Transport Magistrate, Agra. October 18 1968." 3. It is contended that the Magistrate had every power under Section 523 Cr.P.C. to release the vehicle, but as he has not done so the petitioner has come up to this Court under Section 561-A Cr. P.C. 4. On a perusal of the provisions of Section 523 Cr.P.C. it would appear that before the exercise of the power under that section it is necessary that the seizures must have been made in connection with the commission of an offence. That being so, it will have to be seen if any offence had been committed for which the truck had been seized. 5. The U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act has been enacted to provide for imposition of tax on motor vehicles. For that purpose it has laid down for penalties in case of non-payment of tax imposed and also the procedure for realising the taxes due. The former category would come under the heading of offence as the omission to do so calls for imposition of penalties, but the same is not true of the manner of realisation of those taxes. That is done by executive act. Sections 14 and 15-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act give the procedure for realising the tax. Section 14 says that it would be recovered as if it were an arrear of land revenue and Section 15-A lays down that it can be so done by seizure of the vehicle. It would thus appear that under Section 15-A the seizure is made to realise the tax due and not as a punishment for infringement or breach of any penal provision. As the seizure in the present case was made for the realisation of the tax due and not for the breach of any penal provision it cannot be said that the seizure was made for any offence. The agency by which the seizure was made is irrelevant for deciding the matter. As the seizure in the present case was made for the realisation of the tax due and not for the breach of any penal provision it cannot be said that the seizure was made for any offence. The agency by which the seizure was made is irrelevant for deciding the matter. Therefore, the provisions of Section 523 Cr.P.C. can have no application to the present case. 6. Consequently, the application is dismissed.