JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 19.9.2011 and 10.1.2011 whereby the application for release of the jeep bearing registration No. RJ 22C 1905 has been dismissed. 2. The contention of the present petitioner is that the jeep in question was never found transported any liquor. No recovery of any liquor has been made from the impugned jeep and Section 69(2-B) of Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 has no application on the present case. 3. Short facts of the case are that on the basis of information, the S.H.O. Sanderao reached the residential house of Indra Singh and when the police party reached the house of co-accused Indra Singh, it was found that Indra Singh was unloading the liquor cartons from the trolley of tractor bearing registration No. RJ 22 R 0221. Certain liquor cartons were recovered from the tractor trolley and also from the house of co-accused Indra Singh. A case was registered for the offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. Thereafter, during investigation, on the information of co-accused, the present petitioner has been arrested and on the information of the present petitioner, jeep bearing registration No. RJ 22C 1905 has been seized and charge-sheet has been filed against the present petitioner and co-accused Indra Singh. 4. The present petitioner has filed application for release of Jeep No. RJ 22C 1905, which was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that looking at the provisions of Section 69(2-B), the trial Court has no jurisdiction to release the above vehicle. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned vehicle was not at all carrying any excisable articles and hence provisions of Section 69(2-B) are not applicable to this recovery. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that on the information of present petitioner, the vehicle was used for carrying excisable articles and hence bar of Section 69(2-B) will operate. 7. Section 69(2-B) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 reads as under : "69(2-B). Whenever any excisable article is seized under sub-section (1), the District Excise Officer shall have, and, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any Court, Tribunal or other authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make order with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal and release of such property." 8. Whenever any excisable article is seized under sub-section (1), the District Excise Officer shall have, and, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any Court, Tribunal or other authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make order with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal and release of such property." 8. A bare perusal of the above provisions goes to show that the provision will apply only when excisable articles are seized but in the present case no excisable articles are seized from the jeep bearing registration No. RJ 22C 1905 and bar of Section 69(2-B) will not operate against the present petitioner and hence the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 9. In view of the above, this misc. petition is allowed and the impugned orders are hereby quashed. The trial Court is directed to consider and decide the application of the present petitioner as per the provisions contained under Section 457, Cr.P.C.Petition Allowed. *******