JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 29.3.2000 made by learned Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh whereby the petitioner's application under section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking release of dumper No. RJ-09/G-1042 has been rejected. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioners filed an application in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh with the averments that the petitioner's company is the owner of the dumper No. RJ-09/G-1042 which is registered under Motor Vehicles Act. The District Transport Officer seized the dumper on 11.3.2000 on the ground that the driver did not produce the permit and fitness certificate. Tax receipts Rs. 1,56,800/- for the period 4/97 to 3/2000 and Rs. 3,538/- for the period 5/96 to 3/97 was produced on inspection. No token was found. The tax was also due on this vehicle. The checking was conducted on 11.3.2000 at 6.15 p.m. Thus an application was filed by the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate,Chittorgarh to release the said vehicle on superdiginama. The non-petitioner No. 2 opposed the application that tax amount of Rs. 2,77,310/- is liable to be paid and the vehicle is being used without permit and fitness certificate. It was also contended before the learned Judicial Magistrate that the vehicle has been seized under section 17(2) of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951, as such the Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Learned Judicial Magistrate held that the vehicle has been seized for arrears of tax under the provisions of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and the jurisdiction of civil and criminal Court is barred under section 16 of the said Act. Moreover, by decision dated 24.2.2000 dispute regarding levying taxes was remanded to the non-petitioner and if the non-petitioner had not complied with the directions then the petitioner must approach the High Court. In view of this also, the learned Judicial Magistrate took the view that he had no jurisdiction to decide the application. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised two-fold arguments. Firstly, dumper does not fall within the category of 'motor vehicle' and no tax is payable under the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act and the checking made by the non-petitioner No. 2 is wholly unauthorised. Secondly, the non-petitioner No. 2 conducted checking and seized the dumper treating it as a 'motor-vehicle' requiring ,permit, fitness certificate and payment of tax due under the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. Secondly, the non-petitioner No. 2 conducted checking and seized the dumper treating it as a 'motor-vehicle' requiring ,permit, fitness certificate and payment of tax due under the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. Thus the dumper has been seized for the offences alleged under section 207 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The Criminal Court acquires jurisdiction under section 457 Cr.P.C. to decide the application of the petitioner to pass an appropriate order for the release of the dumper. Learned Judicial Magistrate has taken an erroneous view about the lack of jurisdiction. 4. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 and learned Public Prosecutor contended that the dumper falls within the purview of the definition of 'motor-vehicle' and the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Motor Vehicle Taxation Act clearly apply and therefore it has been seized for non-payment of tax. In matters of taxation, the jurisdiction of Criminal and Civil Court is barred under section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. 5. I am of the view that it is not necessary to enter into the controversy that whether the dumper is a motor vehicle or not, for the disposal of this petition. Therefore, it is not necessary to refer the cases cited by both the sides on 'this point. The non-petitioner No. 2 has conducted the checking treating the dumper as motor-vehicle and has seized it for non-payment of tax and for not producing the permit and fitness certificate. Therefore, we have to proceed on the premise that dumper is a 'motor-vehicle'. The question regarding the jurisdiction of the criminal Court to release the vehicle came up for consideration in the similar facts and circumstances in " Noor Khan v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1998 Criminal Law Reporter page 307 . The relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act were elaborately considered and it was held that plying motor vehicle without permit falls under provisions of Section 66(1) and is an offence punishable under section 192 A Motor Vehicle Act and non-payment of tax is an offence under section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The owner of the seized vehicle or the person incharge of the vehicle has two options for the release of the vehicle i.e. he may move an application under section 457 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or he may request the transport authority or other authorised person under section 207(2) Motor Vehicles Act. It was thus held that the Magistrate had power under section 457 Cr.P.C. to deliver the vehicle seized under section 207 of Motor Vehicles Act and Section 17 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. This view has been also taken by me while deciding S.B. Crl.Misc. Petition No. 400/98 under section 482 Cr.P.C. "Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan" decided on 2.5.1998 . In view of the above, I do not deem it necessary to again deal with all the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. I am therefore unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the no-petitioner on this point and learned Public Prosecutor that the seizure being due to non-payment of tax, the criminal Court has no jurisdiction. 6. In the instant case also the checking memo shows that the non- petitioner No. 2 has alleged commission of offences under section 207 Motor Vehicle Act and Section 11 of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. The petitioner has reported the seizure to the Criminal Court and therefore all the essential conditions provided in Section 457 Cr.P.C. are fulfilled and the criminal Court has clearly jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application under section 457 Cr.P.C. on merits. I am therefore of the view that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh crept into an error in holding that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application filed by the petitioners under section 457 Cr.P.C. Learned Judicial Magistrate has erroneously failed to exercise the jurisdiction and in dismissing the application on this point. 7. In the result, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order stands set aside and the case is remitted back to learned Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh to decide the application under section 457 Cr.P.C. afresh. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh on 1.5.2000. Learned Magistrate is expected to decide.the application expeditiously.Petition disposed. *******