Magistrate's jurisdiction over seized truck denied where excise rules provided the exclusive release mechanism and bond-based interim relief.

The Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to release the truck because no inquiry, trial, or police investigation concerning the vehicle was shown to be pending before him, and custody powers under the criminal procedure law apply only in appropriate pending proceedings. For excisable goods and conveyances suspected of smuggling, the Customs Act and Central Excise Rules provide a specific confiscation and interim-release mechanism, including release on bond and security under the applicable rule. Where that statutory remedy exists, resort to the Magistrate for release is impermissible, and the property must be dealt with under the excise procedure.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to release the truck and whether the release of property seized by the excise authorities had to be governed by the statutory excise rules.

Analysis: The order of the Magistrate releasing the truck was held to be beyond jurisdiction because no case was pending inquiry or trial before him and no investigation relating to the truck was shown to be pending before the police. The relevant power regarding custody of property lay under the criminal procedure provisions only in appropriate pending proceedings. In relation to excisable goods and conveyances suspected to be used in smuggling, the Customs Act and the Central Excise Rules provided a specific mechanism for confiscation and for interim release of seized property, including release on bond and security under the applicable rule. Since that statutory remedy existed, approaching the Magistrate for release was impermissible.

Conclusion: The Magistrate's order was illegal and the matter had to be regularised under the excise rules, with release to be obtained on bond and security as permitted by the statutory procedure.

---