A.R.Tiwari, J. - (1.)No light, said Milton in paradise Lost, Tbut rather darkness visible. But Courts determined to secure harmony and spurn antinomy between law and justice search light' in lexicon of law in a surge of an urge to say no darkness, but only light visible. In such determination, resting on linchpin of epicerastic exercise, Courts bear in mind that law has to enchisel flaw and ensure flow in doctrinal direction. After all, no one can have a droit in recourse to opposite course. This inbred intendment aptly takes us to the issue to be unknotted.
(2.)The issue is manifest conflict in two decisions of equal vigour.
(3.)One of us (Honble Shukla, J.), sitting single, found, while hearing this criminal revision presented by the State under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the code) against the order dated 24-7-1996 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Indore (Motor Vehicle Magistrate) in O.A. No. 11471/96, thereby directing release in purported exercise of power under Section 457 of the Code, of Passenger Bus No. MP 09-5-1820 plying between Gwalior and Indore and seized and detained by the Taxation Authority (The Transport Inspector) on 1877-1996 in terms of Section 16(3) of the M.P. Motor Yan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 (For short Adhiniyam) on the fulcrum of non-possession of, valid permit, as required under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 (for short The Act) and non-payment of tax leviable under the Act, on supratnama of 9 lakhs, supported by surety of equal value, on specified conditions, discordant sound in two Divisional Bench decisions-One: Brahmanand v. State of M.P. decided by Honble Kokje and Shukia, JJ. Holding in M.P. No. 1388/92 on 2-12-1993 that a Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction would, therefore, have jurisdiction to grant temporary custody of the vehicle under the Code of Criminal ProcedureT even when seized and detained under Section 16(3) of the Adhiniyam and two Durgaprasad v. M.N. Gupta and Others, F.A. No. 116/1971 decided by Honble G.P. Singh and C.P. Sen, JJ. holding in F.A. arising out of suit for damages on 26-2-1975 that A Magistrate has no jurisdiction underthat provision to release the vehicle seized under Section 18(3) of the Act (M.P. Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Goods) Act, 1962, repealed by Adhiniyam of 1991 in terms of Section 26) and forwarded the case on 24-2-1997 to be laid before Honble the Chief Justice to constitute Full Bench to resolve the conflict and opine as to which of the two sounds in regard to yes or noT to the jurisdiction of Criminal Court has seniority to law i.e. Adhiniyam vis-a-vis Code.