JUDGMENT 1. - Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the orders impugned. 2. The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 14.5.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Udaipur in whereby the application filed by the petitioner for releasing his Maruti Swift vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-06-TC-0019 on interim custody was rejected and the order dated 2.7.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur confirming the order passed by the learned A.C.J.M. No. 3, Udaipur. 3. Mr. Pradeep Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's vehicle was not utilised for transporting or carrying the liquor and as such the provision of Section 69 of the Rajasthan Excise Act which puts an embargo on the Court's power to release the vehicles seized under the Act would not operate in the case. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the highest case as set up by the prosecution is that the petitioner's vehicle was being used to escort the truck No. RJ-27-GA-0965 from which the illicit liquor was recovered. He contended that merely because the petitioner's vehicle was allegedly escorting the truck carrying liquor, it cannot be inferred that it was used for transporting liquor. Learned counsel relied on a decision rendered by this Court in Kana Ram v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2012 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 157 in support of his contentions and prayed that the miscellaneous petition deserves to be accepted and the petitioner's vehicle should be directed to be returned to him on Supardginama. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he has submitted a factual report of the I.O. dated 28.10.2013 wherein it is mentioned that the liquor was recovered while being transported in the truck No. RJ-27-GA-0965. It has clearly been mentioned in the factual report that the petitioner's car was only used for escorting the truck. It is not averred in the report that any liquor was actually transported in the petitioner's vehicle. 6. It has clearly been mentioned in the factual report that the petitioner's car was only used for escorting the truck. It is not averred in the report that any liquor was actually transported in the petitioner's vehicle. 6. In this view of the matter and keeping in view the interpretation of Section 69 as adopted by this Court in Kana Ram v. State of Rajasthan (supra), it is evident that the embargo of Section 69 on the powers of Criminal Court to release the vehicle seized under the Act would only operate when the vehicle is seized while carrying the liquor. As admittedly, in this case the petitioner's vehicle was not carrying any liquor, the said embargo would not operate against the Court's powers as regards the release of the vehicle is concerned. Moreover, if the vehicle is kept lying in the Police Station it will rot and will be rendered waste. 7. In view of the aforesaid legal and factual scenario, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. The orders impugned are quashed. The learned A.C.J.M. No. 3, Udaipur is directed to release the petitioner's Maruti Swift No. RJ-06-TC0019 to him upon his furnishing a Supardginama in the sum of 7 lacs and a surety bond in the amount with other usual terms and conditions.Petition allowed. *******