V. GOPALASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is preferred against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, in Criminal Revision No. 7 of 1986 setting aside the order of the learned S. D. J. M. , Chatrapur, directing delivery of the bus bearing registration No. TMN 7656 to the petitioner under section 457, Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts giving rise to this revision may be briefly stated as follows: On 24-12-1985 the Traffic Inspector of the Transport Department seized the bus bearing registration No. TMN 7656 on the ground that arrear tax to the tone of Rs. 17,000/- was still due to be paid by the owner and further as the bus was found to be plying without a valid fitness certificate. When the R. T. O. , Chatrapur, was approached, he refused to release the bus and gave the owner a copy of the vehicle check report showing that the vehicle was seized for nonpayment of arrear tax of Rs. 17,000/- and that the vehicle had no fitness certificate and route permit. As the R. T. O. refused to release the vehicle on any terms, the petitioner moved the S. D. J. M. , Chatrapur, in Misc. Case No. 158 of 1985 for the release of the bus. The S. D. J. M. by his order dated 4-1-1986 directed the release of the bus in favour of the petitioner under section 457, Cr. P. C. Being aggrieved by the said order, the R. T. O. Chatrapur, filed Criminal Revision No. 7 of 1986 before the Sessions Judge, Ganjam and the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order against which the owner of the bus has filed the present revision. ( 3 ) THE scope of the present revision is confined to a consideration of the provision of section 457, Cr. P. C. Section 457, Cr. P. C. provides: 457. ( 3 ) THE scope of the present revision is confined to a consideration of the provision of section 457, Cr. P. C. Section 457, Cr. P. C. provides: 457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.- (1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property. (2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation. From the above quoted provision it is very; clear that section 457, Cr. P. C. applies to all cases of seizure of property by any police officer when the seizure is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of the Code but not produced before him. It also provides for the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate for the disposal of the property. The provision gives jurisdiction to a Magistrate for disposal of property which has been seized by any police officer. Police officer used in this provision cannot be construed so as to include officers of other departments other than the police officers according to the scheme of the Code of Criminal procedure. So the provision cannot be applied for disposal of property which has been seized by an officer of any other department under any other enactment. Police officer used in this provision cannot be construed so as to include officers of other departments other than the police officers according to the scheme of the Code of Criminal procedure. So the provision cannot be applied for disposal of property which has been seized by an officer of any other department under any other enactment. In K. Nageswar Rao Achari v. State of Orissa and another, this court held that while effecting seizure of a vehicle under the provisions of Section 129a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 or under section 17 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the Traffic Inspector of the Transport Department cannot be held to be a police officer so as to attract the provisions of section 457, Cr. P. C. In Sarat Kumar Ma/u v. State of Orissa, this Court held that section 457, Cr. P. C. will have no application when the property in question has not been seized by a police officer but by a Forest Officer. ( 4 ) SO in view of the undisputed facts in the case that the bus in question was seized by the Traffic Inspector of the Transport Department under the provisions of section 129 A of the Motor Vehicles AC11939 and section. 17 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the learned S. D. J. M. had no jurisdiction to pass the order under section 457, Cr. P. C. Hence the learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order setting aside the order of the learned S. D. J. M. has committed no such illegality so as to justify interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. ( 5 ) IN the result, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Revision dismissed.