1. That on 5.2.2006 the petitioner No. 2, Excise and Taxation Inspector alongwith other staff had laid a Naka at Sungal Morh, Akhnoor and seized vehicle bearing Registration No. JK10-1427. During search operation it was found that the vehicle was illegally carrying 60 bottles of Rum meant for CSD Canteen. A case under sections 48(a) 50(1) and 58 of the J&K Excise Act was registered against the respondent. 2. That petitioner No.2 vide his letter dated 6.2.2006 requested the Excise and Taxation Officer Jammu to initiate proceedings under sections 58 and 59 of the Excise Act in respect of the seized goods and vehicle. Petitioner No. 1 Excise & Taxation Officer reported the matter to Deputy Excise Commissioner Jammu for initiation of confiscation proceedings of the seized contraband and vehicle under the provisions of Excise Act. An application came to be filed by the respondent before the trial court for custody of the vehicle on superdnama. Said application was opposed by the Deputy Commissioner, Excise on the ground that Magistrate had no power to deal with the matter as confiscation proceedings had already been initiated against the respondent. Trial court overruling the objections of the petitioners passed an order of handing over the vehicle on superdnama to registered owner on 6.2.2006. Against this order, revision petition was filed before the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu. Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu dismissed the petition on the ground that handing over of vehicle on superdnama was an interlocutory order and as such was not revisable. It is this order of Principal Sessions Judge which has been assailed under section 561-A of Cr.P.C. before this court. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 4. Contention of the petitioners that the Magistrate has to keep his hands off once confiscation proceedings are initiated under sections 58 and 59 of the Excise Act. It is further stated that Excise Act provides a complete mode for disposal of the property and Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain any application for disposal of the property once confiscation proceedings have been initiated. 5. There is no dispute with respect to proposition that the order of handing over of the vehicle on superdnama during the trial is an interlocutory order. 5. There is no dispute with respect to proposition that the order of handing over of the vehicle on superdnama during the trial is an interlocutory order. It has been held by various courts that handing over of the vehicle during the pendency of the trial is only to ensure safe custody of the property and its production during the course of trial. Court may give property in the custody of rival claimant or may place the same in the custody of 3rd person. Any one who comes in possession of the said property holds it on behalf of the court. Arrangement is to enure during the trial. Learned revisional court was right in rejecting the plea of the petitioner that the order was inter-lucutory and as such revision was not maintainable. 6. Other grounds raised by the petitioners that since the property was confiscated by the Excise Department, confiscation proceedings under sections 58 and 59 were launched by the respondent. Once that was done Magistrate had lost its jurisdiction to entertain an application for disposal of the property. Power to confiscate is traceable to sections 58 and 59 of the Excise Act. Section 59 authorizes the Deputy Commissioner or a Magistrate to initiate confiscation proceedings. This section clearly mentions that whenever confiscation is authorized by this Act, that power can be only exercised by the Deputy Commissioner or the Magistrate. Section 58 relates to power of confiscation. Question arises as to whether once vehicle has been seized under section 58 of the Excise Act and the confiscation proceedings have been ordered, does the Magistrate lose its jurisdiction to deal with the matter? The answer is no. Section 59 itself provides that whenever confiscation is authorized by this Act the Deputy Commissioner or the Magistrate ordering it may confiscate the property. So in my opinion, even if a case has been registered under the Excise Act, power to confiscate a vehicle can be ordered by the Magistrate also. The Magistrate can order the confiscation only under section 517 Cr.P.C. and this power can be exercised only after the conclusion of the trial. Excise Act does not take away jurisdiction of the Magistrate dealing with the matter under section 517 Cr.P.C. So power of the Magistrate to order confiscation is only after conclusion of the trial. The Magistrate can order the confiscation only under section 517 Cr.P.C. and this power can be exercised only after the conclusion of the trial. Excise Act does not take away jurisdiction of the Magistrate dealing with the matter under section 517 Cr.P.C. So power of the Magistrate to order confiscation is only after conclusion of the trial. In the present case, the application for release of vehicle was moved on 6.2.2006 and the order was passed on the same date. The Magistrate had exercised jurisdiction on the date when the application was filed for release of the vehicle. Order of confiscation is said to have been passed only after a recommendation was made by the Excise and Taxation Officer on 6.2.2006. As a matter of fact, no confiscation proceedings are said to have been initiated on 6.2.2006 but only sometime thereafter. The Excise department had lost jurisdiction to confiscate this vehicle as vehicle stood released in favour of respondent on 6.2.2006. When the Magistrate assumed jurisdiction in dealing with the matter, admittedly on that date confiscation proceedings were not pending. It is not in dispute that the Magistrate had dealt with the matter on 6.2.2006 when no confiscation proceedings were initiated by excise Department. He could order confiscation only after conclusion of the trial. 7. With this I find no force in this petition which is dismissed.