Judgment 1. The present application under S. 482 of the Cr. P.C. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as _the Cr. P.C._) has been filed for quashing of the order dated 10-10-1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gaya by which he has affirmed the order dated 18-12-1991 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Magadh Division, Gaya refusing to release the vehicle of the petitioner. Prayer is also for releasing the vehicle. 2. The petitioner is the registered owner of Bus No. BPP 9653. On 13-9-1991 the Roadways Magistrate along with the Sub-Inspector of police (opposite parties No. 2 and 3) seized the said buts on the allegation that the vehicle was found plying from Mahendiya to Bokaro with 25 passenger without having any permit for the route as contemplated u/ S. 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as _the Act_). Thereafter, a prosecution was instituted against the petitioner for committing an offence u/ S. 192/177 of the Act, which is still pending. The petitioner filed an application for release of the vehicle before the learned special judicial Magistrate but the same was rejected by the order dated 18-12-1991. Against the said order the petitioner preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, which was also rejected by the impugned order. The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge have noticed in their orders that the petitioner had committed similar offences thrice within a span of period of one and half year including the present prosecution. In the previous two criminal cases the accused by filing affidavit had given assurance that the vehicle would not be plied without valid permit. In spite of the said undertaking, after release of the vehicle, the same was found to be plying without permit. Keeping this aspect in view the learned Judicial Magistrate refused to release the vehicle any further. The learned Sessions Judge also did not feel pursuaded to pass any order releasing the vehicle. 3. In spite of the said undertaking, after release of the vehicle, the same was found to be plying without permit. Keeping this aspect in view the learned Judicial Magistrate refused to release the vehicle any further. The learned Sessions Judge also did not feel pursuaded to pass any order releasing the vehicle. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that under the facts and the circumstances of the case, the courts below have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them in its proper perspective, which has led to miscarriage of justice inasmuch as if for petty offences like the present one, the motor vehicles worth lacs of rupees is allowed to rot in police custody since the loss likely to be caused will be irreparable. It was further submitted that in view of S. 457 of the Cr. P.C. it was incumbent upon the courts below to pass an appropriate order for release of the vehicle on such terms and conditions as may be found fit and proper. It was also submitted that since in this case, the learned Magistrate had completely failed to exercise his jurisdiction judicially, therefore, the bar contained u/ S. 397(3) cannot have any play. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate was right in not releasing the vehicle. It is so not because of the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate in his impugned order but because he has no jurisdiction to pass any order releasing the vehicle seized u/ S. 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. To bring home the point of view taken by me it will be necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Act. 5. Sec. 207 of the Act relates to power to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration permit etc. and reads as under: "207(1) Any police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of S. 3 or S. 4 or S. 39 or without the permit required by sub-sec. and reads as under: "207(1) Any police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of S. 3 or S. 4 or S. 39 or without the permit required by sub-sec. (1) of S. 66 or in contravention of any condition of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, seize and detain the vehicles in the prescribed manner and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle: Provided that where any such officer or person has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of S. 3 or S. 4 or without the permit required by sub-sec. (1) of S. 66, he may, instead of seizing the vehicle, seize the certificate of registration of the vehicle and shall issue an acknowledgement in respect thereof." 6. In the present case, the motor vehicle in question has been seized on the charge that the same was found plying without a permit as required under sub-sec. (1) of S. 66. Sec. 66(1) of the Act reads as under: 66(1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or counter-signed by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used ......." Therefore, under the aforesaid provisions no motor vehicle can be used as a transport vehicle in any public place without there being a permit, for the purpose. A reference to the difinition clauses contained in clauses (28), (33), (35) and (47) of S. 2 of the Act defining "motor vehicle" or "vehicle", "private service vehicle", "public service vehicle", and "transport vehicle", it is clear that the bus in question falls within the sweep of the expression "transport vehicle" for the purpose of the Act. A reference to the difinition clauses contained in clauses (28), (33), (35) and (47) of S. 2 of the Act defining "motor vehicle" or "vehicle", "private service vehicle", "public service vehicle", and "transport vehicle", it is clear that the bus in question falls within the sweep of the expression "transport vehicle" for the purpose of the Act. Therefore, it could not have been plied except on a permit granted or countersigned by the "Transport Authorities." The concept and constitution of the "Transport Authorities" is envisaged u/ S. 68 of the Act. Keeping in view this scheme, the parliament under sub- sec. (2) of S. 207 of the Act has provided that if a motor vehicle is, inter alia, seized and detained for violation of the provisions of S. 66(1) i.e. if it is found plying without the requisite permit, then the owner has to apply for release of the vehicle to the Transport Authority or any officers authorised in this behalf by the State Government together with the relevant documents for release of the vehicle. On having received the application for release, the said Authority or officer can release the vehicle subject to such conditions as they may deem fit to impose only after verification of relevant documents. In my opinion, if the vehicle is seized on the ground that it was being plied without having any permit then the route permit will be a relevant document, which will be required to be verified before any order of release is passed under sub-sec. (2) of S. 207 of the Act. The object behind the enactment of such a stringent provision is quite apparent. As observed above, a transport vehicle can neither be used nor permitted to be used except under and in accordance with the permit granted by the Transport Authorities under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, if a transport vehicle is seized on the ground that it was being used without a permit and if in fact, the owner of the vehicle had no permit, then under no situation the vehicle can be used or permitted to be used in any public place. As such, the release of the vehicle cannot be of any use to its owner. As such, the release of the vehicle cannot be of any use to its owner. On the other hand, if the vehicle is released without there being any permit in his favour, there are always chances of its misuse in the sense that it can be plied again in violation of the provisions of the Act as it has happened in the present case. 7. So far as the jurisdiction conferred on the Magistrate u/S.457 of the Cr. P.C. is concerned, in my opinion, the same cannot be exercised by the Magistrate in respect of the vehicles, which have been seized u/ S. 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act because with regard to the seizure and release of Motor vehicles, specific provision has been made under the Special Act. In this connection, I may refer to S. 4 of the Cr. P.C. which reads as under: "S. 4 Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws - (1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), shall be investigated inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained. (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences." 8. In view of the aforesaid provision since power of releasing the motor vehicle seized under the Act has been conferred on specified authorities, therefore, impliedly in this regard the power of the Magistrate, being a court of general jurisdiction, will stand excluded. 9. Coming to the last issue that if the vehicle in question is allowed to remain in police custody under open sky and unattended by or on behalf of the owner it may get damaged to an irreparable extent, I may observe that the concerned authorities will pass appropriate orders for safe custody of the vehicle, keeping in view the interest of the owner till the stage it is released in accordance with law. 10. Subject to the observations made above, the present application is dismissed. Application dismissed.