Judgment : The present action is one resorted to be taken under Sec.482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying for a direction to release the tanker lorry bearing registration No. TCB.7168 involved in Cr.No. 909/ 93 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Tiruppur (respondent). .2. One Velusamy (petitioner) is stated to be the owner of the said tanker lorry. On 8. 1993 at about 00.30 hours, the said lorry was proceeding towards Udamalpet. The Prohibition and Enforcement Wing Police personnel stopped the said lorry near Sithampalam at Bridge No. 44/1 and checked the same. In the process of checking and inspection it was found out that the said tanker lorry contained three chambers. The middle chamber was found filled with oil and water and the front and rear chambers were filled with rectified spirit of 5,000 litres. For transporting the said quantity of rectified spirit, there was no licence or permit. The lorry was stated to have been driven by one Palanisami and there was a cleaner in the said lorry going by the name Selvaraj. The said lorry had been seized besides the arrest of the driver and the cleaner. A case in the crime number as aforesaid has been registered under Sec. 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and Rules 5 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Rectified Spirit Rules and Sec. 328, I.P.C. The driver and cleaner after their arrest had been remanded to custody. The seized lorry had been produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam. 3. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No. 1595 of 1993 before the Judicial Magistrate Palladam under Sec. 451, Criminal Procedure Code, praying for the interim custody of the lorry pending disposal of the case. The said application had been dismissed by the said learned Magistrate. 4. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said application the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Case No. 130 of 1993 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Coimbatore, Learned Sessions Judge by order dated 11. 1994 dismissed the revision confirming the order of the trial Magistrate. While dismissing the revision learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding that the illicit transport of rectified spirit by using the said tanker lorry could not have been done without the knowledge of the petitioner inasmuch as the chambers had been arranged in such a way to transport illicit rectified spirit without possibility of easy detection. While dismissing the revision learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding that the illicit transport of rectified spirit by using the said tanker lorry could not have been done without the knowledge of the petitioner inasmuch as the chambers had been arranged in such a way to transport illicit rectified spirit without possibility of easy detection. That apart, he had also expressed that in the R.C. book though his name had been mentioned yet he has taken care to see that the address furnished therein was rather fictitious or false and this sort of protection had been taken for the avowed purpose of using the lorry for the purpose of transport of illicit rectified spirit. Aggrieved by the said order the matter is being agitated in the present action. 5. Arguments of Mr.M. Ravindran learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.N. Rajan, learned Government Advocate were heard. .6. Learned Government Advocate also produced the case diary for perusal of the court. A perusal of the case diary reveals that the Superintendent of Police (Prohibition and Enforcement Wing), Salem Town, Salem issued a notice in R.C.No. 1/CON/PEW/SZ/94 dated 1. 1994 to the petitioner requiring him to show cause why the said tanker lorry which had been utilised for the clandestine transport of illicit rectified spirit should not be confiscated. What is further revealed is that the petitioner resorted to challenge the constitutional validity of Sec. 14 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act in M. Velusamy v. The Secretary to Government, Home (Prohibition and Excise) Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9 and another, W.P.No. 2324 of 1994 and while doing so they appeared to have filed two Writ Miscellaneous Petition Nos.3826 and 3827 of 1994, one for stay of further proceedings and the other for the release of the said tanker lorry pending disposal of the writ petition. Both the writ miscellaneous petitions appeared to have been dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court. 7. As against the said dismissal the petitioner appeared to have filed two writ appeals in W.A.Nos. 400 and 401 of 1994. W.A.No. 400 of 1994 is directed against the dismissal of W.M.P. 3826 of 1994 while W.A.No. 401 of 1994 is directed against the dismissal of W.M.P.No. 3827 of 1994. 7. As against the said dismissal the petitioner appeared to have filed two writ appeals in W.A.Nos. 400 and 401 of 1994. W.A.No. 400 of 1994 is directed against the dismissal of W.M.P. 3826 of 1994 while W.A.No. 401 of 1994 is directed against the dismissal of W.M.P.No. 3827 of 1994. Even at the time of admission it is said that W.A.No. 401 of 1994 praying for the interim custody of the lorry had been dismissed while M. Velusamy v. The Secretary to Government, Home (Prohibition and Excise) Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9 and another, W.A.No. 400 of 1994 had been disposed of even at the time of admission by making the following observation: “Further proceedings in the case can go on and the final order also can be passed but the order shall not be given effect to until further orders from this Court. The petitioner is permitted to file his objections if any to the show cause notice in three weeks from today......” 8. As such there is no impediment for the Superintendent of Police, Prohibition and Enforcement Wing, Salem Town, Salem to pass a final order on consideration of the objections filed by the petitioner. But, at the same time the order so passed shall not be given effect to until further orders from this Court in the writ petition are stated to be pending. In such a situation it is not proper for this Court to order for the interim custody of the said tanker to the petitioner. The petition as such deserves to be dismissed. 9. Before parting with the case, I want to state that the entertainment of the revision by learned Sessions Judge Coimbatore is not in accordance with law. The order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam refusing interim custody of the said tanker lorry under Sec. 451, Criminal Procedure Code is after all an interlocutory order against which no revision can be preferred on the basis of the sanguine provision adumbrated under Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 397, Criminal Procedure Code which prescribes that the powers of revision conferred by Sub-sec. (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. 10. Subject to the above observation the petition is dismissed.