K. L. SHARMA, J. This is criminal revision against the order and judge ment dated 23-8-1994 passed by Sessions Judge, Lalitpur in Criminal Misc. No. 37 of 1994 whereby the appeal against the order of the learned Magistrate refusing release of the jeep in favour of the applicant has been rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant Sri Sudamaji Shandilya and the learned A. G. A. I have perused the record as well as the impugned order. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the Jeep bearing No. UP-93/a 2068 belonged to the applicant who has not been named in the FIR and against whom no evidence has been alleged. In support of his contention he has invited my attention to a decision of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 860 of 1992- Jai Prakash Sharma v. State of U. P. 1993 (30) ACC 6: 1993 JIC 81 (All ). I find that there is no dispute in the ownership of Jeep No, UP-93/a2064 which belongs to the applicant who is a registered owner thereof. The applicant has not been named in the FIR lodged under Section 60 of the Excise Act. There is no legal bar to the release of the Jeep in favour of the registered on wer thereof. The subject- matter of the commission of the offence under Sections 72 and 73 of the Excise Act consists of the liquor boitles being carried in the Jeep. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the revisionist has not yet been served with any notice by the District Magis trate regarding the confiscation proceedings. It seems that he is not a party even to confiscation proceedings. The matter is still under investigation. The Jeep lying at the police station, if not released, will get damaged, ruined and dusted and will ultimately be unservicable and unsaleable tor obvious reasons. The applicant is ready to give security and undertaking to produce the Jeep either before the Investigating of Bcer or before the Court as and when required. 3. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Jeep shall be released in favour of the applicant during investigation. The impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge suffers from incorrecthess and impropriety. Therefore, this revision is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. 3. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Jeep shall be released in favour of the applicant during investigation. The impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge suffers from incorrecthess and impropriety. Therefore, this revision is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. It is hereby directed that Jeep No. UP-93/a-2068 shall be released in favour of the applicant on his furnish ing such security and undertaking as may be required by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur within a period of seven days from the date of this order. Revision allowed. .