Special confiscation scheme prevails over general criminal court release powers where statute vests confiscatory authority in the Collector.

A special confiscation scheme under Section 72 of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 operates as a self-contained procedure, empowering the Collector to order confiscation whether or not prosecution has been launched and to impose fine in lieu of confiscation. Because the Act separately provides for seizure, confiscation, sale, review and appeal, the general custody and release powers under Sections 451, 452 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 yield to the extent of inconsistency. Criminal prosecution and confiscation are distinct proceedings, so pending prosecution does not remove the Collector's confiscatory jurisdiction. The criminal court has no power to order release contrary to the statutory scheme.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Collector had exclusive jurisdiction to confiscate the seized vehicle under the Excise Act and whether the criminal court could exercise powers of interim or final release under the Code in view of the special confiscation scheme.

Analysis: The confiscation scheme under Section 72 of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 is a self-contained special procedure. The Collector is empowered to order confiscation whether or not prosecution has been instituted, and the power to impose fine in lieu of confiscation also vests in the Collector. The Act separately provides for seizure, confiscation, sale in cases of speedy wear and tear or natural decay, review, and appeal, thereby excluding the general custody and release powers under Sections 451, 452 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to the extent they are inconsistent with the Act. Criminal prosecution and confiscation are distinct proceedings, and the pendency or institution of prosecution does not divest the Collector of confiscatory jurisdiction. The Court also distinguished the authority relied upon for interim release because the statutory scheme here is materially different.

Conclusion: The Collector has exclusive jurisdiction to confiscate the vehicle, and the criminal court has no jurisdiction to order its release contrary to the Act. The challenge to confiscatory jurisdiction failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute creates an independent confiscation mechanism and vests confiscatory power in a designated authority, the general powers of criminal courts under the Code must yield to the special procedure to the extent of inconsistency.

---