VEERABHADRAIAH, J, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner being aggrieved of the order passed in CRL appeal NO. 34/03 by the Prl Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, mangalore dt 18. 6. 2003 dismissing the appeal by confirming the order, has come up with this revision petition. ( 2 ) THE brief facts are as follows: the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle Tata Sumo bearing regn No KA-14/m-1706 and the said vehicle was seized by the police Sub-Inspector, Vittal Police Station, Vittal, on 3. 5. 2002 while illegally transporting non-duty paid liquor from the State of Karnataka to Kerala, and a case was registered in Crime No 39/02 for the offence punishable u/s 32, 34, 43 (3) of the Karnataka Excise Act against the accused and reported the same to the Superintendent of Excise (an Authorised Officer), DK, Mangalore who in-turn registered a case on his file in SDK/457/dtcr/2001-02. The petitioner filed an application before the authorised officer for release of the vehicle Tata-sumo in question. The authorised officer ordered for release of the vehicle by imposing certain conditions. The owner being dis-satisfied with the condition of furnishing Bank guarantee for Rs 90,000/- has preferred Criminal Appeal No 34/03 on the file of the Prl Sessions Judge, DK, Mangalore, which also came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved of the dismissal of the Criminal appeal, the petitioner has come up with this revision. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that without his knowledge, the vehicle was taken and used for the commission of such offence. That apart, the vehicle Tata-sumo is of the year 1995 and the present value of the vehicle also do not fetch an amount of Rs 90,000/ -. Therefore, directing the petitioner to furnish bank Guarantee is unjust and incorrect and therefore, prayed to relax the condition in so far as it relates to furnishing of Bank guarantee. ( 4 ) THE learned HCGP Sri H. V. Ramesh for the respondents/state, contended relying on the decision reported in the case of STATE of KARNATAKA vs K. KRISHNAN1 justified the dismissal of the appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. ( 5 ) IN the light of the submission, the point for consideration that arise:whether the condition directing the petitioner to furnish Bank guarantee to the tune of Rs 90,000/- is liable to be relaxed, what order ? ( 5 ) IN the light of the submission, the point for consideration that arise:whether the condition directing the petitioner to furnish Bank guarantee to the tune of Rs 90,000/- is liable to be relaxed, what order ? ( 6 ) IT is no doubt true that the vehicle was seized while transporting liquor illegally. The case registered by the prosecution is under section 32, 34, and 43 (3) of the Karnataka Excise Act. Section 32 of the Excise Act deals with imposing penalties in respect of illegal importing of liquor etc, and be punished with imprisonment for a term which extend to 3 years. Section 34 deals with penalty for illegal possession of liquor and the person be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and fine for the purpose of releasing of the vehicle, these two Sections are not applicable to the owner of the vehicle. Section 43 of the Excise Act reads thus. SECTION 43 : Liability of certain things to confiscation: Whenever an offence has been committed, which is punishable under this Act, the following things shall be liable to confiscation namely: (1) any intoxicant, materials, still, utensil, implement or apparatus in respect of, or by means of which, such offence has been committed; (2) any intoxicant lawfully imported, transported, manufactured, had in possession or sold along with, or in addition to any intoxicant liable to confiscation under the clause (1); and (3) any receptacle, package or covering in which anything liable to confiscation under the clause (1) or clause (2) ; is found and the other conditions if any, of such receptacle, package or covering and any animal, vehicle, vessel, raft or other conveyance used for carrying the samethis makes clear, where the materials seized, used for the commission of the offence under the Excise Act are liable for confiscation. That in so far as the confiscation of the property has been dealt under Sections 43 A, 43 B, 43 C of the Karnataka Excise act. That in so far as the confiscation of the property has been dealt under Sections 43 A, 43 B, 43 C of the Karnataka Excise act. The Apex Court, in the case of State of Karnataka vs K. Krishnan reported in ILR 2000 KAR 3731 in the middle of para 7, while considering the provisions of Section 62, Section 71-A or Section 71-C of the Forest Act observed:the Liberal approach in the matter would perpetuate the commission of more offences with respect to the forest and its produce for which, if not protected, is surely to affect the mother earth and the atmosphere surrounding it. The Courts cannot shut their eyes and ignore their obligations indicated in the Act enacted for the purposes of protecting and safeguarding both the forests and their produce. The forests are not only the natural wealth of the country but also protector of human life by providing a clean and unpolluted atmosphere we are of the considered view that we when any vehicle is seized on the allegation that it was used for committing a forest offence, the same shall not normally be returned to a party till the culmination of all the proceedings in respect of such offence, including confiscatory proceedings, if any Nonetheless, if for any exceptional reasons a Court is inclined to release the vehicle during such pendency, furnishing bank guarantee should be a minimum conditionit is with the said reasonings, the Apex Court upheld the condition imposed for furnishing Bank guarantee in respected of the offences committed under the Forests Act. ( 7 ) ON going through the provisions of Section 62, 71a, of the forests Act, and Section 43 (3) of the Excise Act, both provides for the confiscation of the materials seized. But the products involved under the Forests Act and the materials that have been seized under the Excise Act are altogether distinct and separate and cannot be equated. That apart, the tenor of the meaning of Section 71 A is quite different to that of Section 43 of the Excise Act. Therefore, such a stringent condition directing a party to furnish Bank Guarantee appears not appropriate in all such offences. That apart, the tenor of the meaning of Section 71 A is quite different to that of Section 43 of the Excise Act. Therefore, such a stringent condition directing a party to furnish Bank Guarantee appears not appropriate in all such offences. That apart, the Apex court while dealing with the speedy disposal of the property seized and considering the provisions of Section 451 and 457 of CPC reported in the case SUNDERBAI AMBALAL DESAI vs STATE OF gujarath2, has held that: Powers under Section 457 Cr PC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely: (1) Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation. (2) Court or the Police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody. (3) If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and (4) The jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles further, while considering the seizure of liquors, drugs, it is held that:samples should be send immediately to the chemical Analyser so that subsequently, a contention may not be raised that the article which was seized was not the same. In the present case, we are not concerned about the seizure of liquor. We are concerned with the release of the vehicle in question which was seized while illegally transporting the liquor. In the light of the above observation and reasonings by the Apex Court, as the vehicle is sufficiently old enough, instead of Bank guarantee, if the petitioner were to be directed to furnish Indemnity bond for the said amount of Rs 90,000/- with two sureties, it meets the ends of justice. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the authorised officer of the Excise Department directing to furnish Bank guarantee is modified, and the petitioner is directed to furnish Indemnity bond for the said amount. The other conditions imposed by the Authorised officer shall stands unaltered. --- *** --- .