JUDGMENT 1. - Instant miscellaneous petition impugns the order dated December 10, 1997 of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No.1 Dholpur, whereby the application purporting to have been filed under section 457 Cr.PC. was dismissed. 2. Brief resume of the facts is that transport department on November 29, 1997 seized Truck No. M.K.W. 7581 belonging to the petitioner on the ground that it was found plying without Registration Certificate OTT (one time Tax). The petitioner submitted an application for releasing the said truck before the learned Magistrate. The said application was dismissed by the learned court below placing reliance on State of Rajasthan v. Mohd. Nisar (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 675 of 1995), decided on 17th July, 1997. 3. I have heard Mr. Anil Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.R. Yadav, learned Government Advocate and carefully analysed the legal position. 4. The principles that are deduced after scanning the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the M.V. Act) and the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (for short the M.V. Taxation Act) may be summarised thus - (i) Plying motor vehicle without permit flouting the provisions of section 66(1) is an offence punishable, under section 192 A of the M.V. Act. (ii) Authorised persons have powers to seize and detain such vehicle under section 207 (1) of the M.V. Act. They have, however, discretion only to seize the certificate of registration of the vehicle instead of detaining the vehicle itself. (iii) Under sub-section (2) of Section 207 the owner of the vehicle may apply for the release of the vehicle before the transport authority or any other authorised officer. (iv) Under section 208 of the M.V. Act, the court taking cognisance of the offences is vested with the power to dispose of the cases summarily. It is directed that if the accused pleads guilty through money order coupon and remit fine, no further proceedings shall be taken against him. (v) Under Section 17 of the M.V. Taxation Act authorised person may stop the vehicle for the purpose of satisfying themselves that the amount of tax is paid or not. When the tax is found due the vehicle may be detained and seized, where the vehicle so seized is non-transport, it may be released after obtaining a bond for a sum not exceeding Rs. When the tax is found due the vehicle may be detained and seized, where the vehicle so seized is non-transport, it may be released after obtaining a bond for a sum not exceeding Rs. 500/- for depositing the tax within the period specified in the bond. (vi) Non-payment of tax is an offence under section 11 of the M.V. Taxation Act. (vii) No court inferior to that of a Magistrate of Second Class shall try any offence punishable under the M.V. Taxation Act. (Emphasis supplied) 5. Two conditions must be fulfilled before the power under section 457 Cr.P.C. can be exercised, the first condition being that the seizure of the property is reported to the magistrate and, secondly the property is not produced before the criminal court in an enquiry on trial. The placing of the report by the police or other officer before a magistrate is not condition precedent to the entertainment of an application under the section. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the magistrate by any party interested or even by a party who applies for delivery of the property it is sufficient to give jurisdiction to the magistrate to entertain and deal with the application. 6. This Court (Hon'ble Mohd. Yamin J.) in State of Rajasthan v. Mohd. Nissar (supra) took the view that when the vehicle is seized on the ground of non-payment of Tax, under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act or Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, the procedure prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be applicable and the jurisdiction of the magistrate under section 457 Cr.PC. shall stand excluded by virtue of provisions contained in section 4 of the Cr.PC. In the said decision his Lordship also made a reference of the Circular issued by the High Court vide No. 4/P. 1 dated July 28, 1975 addressed to all subordinate courts on the subject of release of motor vehicles seized by the transport officers for non-payment of tax. The circular reads as under - "I am directed to say that it has been brought to the notice of the Court that some Judicial Magistrate have ordered the release of those vehicles which had been seized under section 17(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, on execution of personal bonds of petty amounts. The circular reads as under - "I am directed to say that it has been brought to the notice of the Court that some Judicial Magistrate have ordered the release of those vehicles which had been seized under section 17(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, on execution of personal bonds of petty amounts. The section provides that where any tax due in respect of any vehicle has not been paid, any police officer not below such rank as may be prescribed, and any officer of Transport Department not below the rank of a Sub Inspector, and any officer of the Commercial Taxes Department not below the rank of an Inspector posted at the check posts controlled by the Commercial Taxes Department may seize and detain such vehicle and take or cause to be taken such steps as he may consider necessary for the safe custody of the vehicle until it is produced before the Taxation officer of the area concerned within a reasonable time or the tax due in respect of the vehicle is paid. It appeared that it cannot be said in such cases that the vehicle has been seized with respect of any offence, and a Judicial Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to order its release in exercise of the powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The notices, legal position should therefore be kept in view while entertaining such cases." (Emphasis supplied)After referring the above noted circular, this court in State of Rajasthan v. Mohd. Nissar (supra) observed thus - "It means, that if any other procedure is provided under any other law. the matters relating to them will be dealt with according to the provisions of those special laws. Learned Magistrate, who released the vehicle by impugned order, did not care either to see the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the circular of the High Court which was issued on the administrative side in order to draw the attention of the subordinate Magistrates. The learned Magistrate vide his order released the vehicle to Mohd. Nisar on his application which is Annexure-4 and which also mentions that the tax due against the vehicle was w.e.f. 1.7.94 to 30.6.95 and the special road tax was from July 1994 to July 1995. The learned Magistrate vide his order released the vehicle to Mohd. Nisar on his application which is Annexure-4 and which also mentions that the tax due against the vehicle was w.e.f. 1.7.94 to 30.6.95 and the special road tax was from July 1994 to July 1995. When the situation was such that the magistrate could not have released the vehicle, he has definitely transgressed his jurisdiction by releasing the vehicle under Section 457 Cr.PC. on the application of Mohd. Nisar. His order is bad in law or deserves to be quashed. Besides my experience is that the circulars which are issued by the High Court to the Subordinate Courts are not being kept in view and in this case specially the learned Magistrate did not care to see the circular which was issued to the subordinate Courts for the personal attention of the Presiding Officers." 7. This opinion was again expressed in Sucharan v. State (supra) by this Court. 8. Patna High Court, in Sharangdhar v. State of Bihar (supra) also indicated that in view of the provisions contained in Section 4 Cr.PC. the powers of releasing the Motor Vehicle seized under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, have been conferred on specified authorities, therefore, impliedly in this regard the power of the Magistrate under Section 457 Cr.PC. being a Court of general jurisdiction, will stand excluded. 9. But their lordships of the Supreme Court in Transport Commissioner v. Sardar Ali ( AIR 1983 SC 1225 ) propounded thus - "A precondition to the seizure and detention of the vehicle is that the police officer or authorised person must have reason to believe that one or the other of the officers specified, punishable under Section 123 (Now S. 192) has been or is being committed. Whenever property involved in the commission of an offence is seized, the seizure is generally expected to serve a manifold purpose such as to prevent repetition of the offence, to sue the thing seized as material evidence in the prosecution, to preserve the property so as to enable the Court to pass appropriate orders for its disposal by way of destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise. There is no reason to assume that the seizure under Section 129A (Now Section 207) is any different and is not to serve any of these purposes or any purpose at all." (Emphasis supplied) 10. Their lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Rameshwar Rathod (AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1849) propounded that when a vehicle was seized by the police for alleged contravention of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act 1955, Criminal Court could entertain an application for return of the vehicle because the jurisdiction is not ousted by the Amendment made in the Essential Commodities Act by Amendment Act (30 of 1974).In M.V. Act of M.V. Taxation Act, the jurisdiction of Criminal Court to entertain application under Section 457 Cr.PC., is not ousted. An option however, has been given to the owner of the vehicle under Section 207(2) of the M.V. Act to make an application for the release of the vehicle before the Transport Authority or any other authorised officer. Intention of Legislature is evident from the language used in sub section 2 of Section 207 of the M.V. Act which says - "Where a motor vehicle has been seized and detained under Sub-Section (1) the owner or person in charge of the Motor Vehicle may apply to the transport authority." (Emphasis supplied) 11. Thus owner of the vehicle or person in charge of the vehicle has two options for the release of the - (1) He may move an application under Section 457 Cr.PC. before the Magistrate, or (2) He may request the Transport authority or other authorised person under Section 207(2) M.V. Act. 12. In view of what I have discussed above I am unable to persuade myself to subscribe the view expressed in Shrangdhar Sharma v. State of Bihar (supra) State of Rajasthan v. Mohd. Nisar (supra) and Sucharan v. State of Raj. (Supra). Powers of Magistrate under Section 457 Cr.PC. do not stand excluded in view of specific provisions in Section 207 of the M.V. Act. These provisions do not oust the jurisdiction of criminal Court. Nisar (supra) and Sucharan v. State of Raj. (Supra). Powers of Magistrate under Section 457 Cr.PC. do not stand excluded in view of specific provisions in Section 207 of the M.V. Act. These provisions do not oust the jurisdiction of criminal Court. Ratio propounded by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Transport Commissioner v. Sardar Ali (supra) escaped attention of the learned Judges, which clearly laid down that property seized under Section 207 of the M.V. Act can be delivered by the Court to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise. 13. Now I come to the circular issued by this Court vide No.41 P1 dated July 28, 1975 addressed to all subordinate Courts on the subject of release of Motor Vehicles seized by the transport officers for non payment of tax. It was stated in the said circular that - "... It appeared that it cannot be said in such cases that the vehicle has been seized with respect of any offence, and a Judicial Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to order its release in exercise of the power under the Code of Criminal Procedure." As already noticed, non-payment of tax is an offence under Section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus the language incorporated in the circular that the seizure of motor vehicle in the event of non-payment of tax, does not amount to seizure with respect of any offence has been used ignoring the provisions of section 11 of the M.V. Taxation Act. Under Section 15 of the said Act, a Magistrate is entitled to take cognisance of the offence and he has jurisdiction to order the release of the vehicle under Section 457 Cr.PC. In my humble view a circular issued on the administrative side cannot curtail the judicial powers of the magistrates. They may follow the guide lines issued through circulars while interpreting the legal provisions. 14. The decisions in Shrangdhar Sharma v. State of Bihar (Supra) State of Rajasthan v. Mohd. In my humble view a circular issued on the administrative side cannot curtail the judicial powers of the magistrates. They may follow the guide lines issued through circulars while interpreting the legal provisions. 14. The decisions in Shrangdhar Sharma v. State of Bihar (Supra) State of Rajasthan v. Mohd. Nisar (supra) and Sucharan v. State of Rajasthan (supra) were per incuriam being rendered without noticing the binding decision of the Supreme Court in Transport Commissioner v. Sardar Ali (supra), wherein their Lordships in para 4 propounded thus:- "...We have already noticed how section 4(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that offences under laws other than the Penal Code also are to be investigated inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XXXIV of the Code relating to "Disposal of Property" are also therefore attracted in dealing with offences under the Motor Vehicles Act." (Emphasis supplied) 15. In the result, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed, the impugned order stands set aside and the case is remitted back to the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No.1 Dholpur to decide the application under section 457 Cr.PC. afresh. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on March 25, 1998. Learned Magistrate is expected to decide the application expeditiously.Petition allowed. *******