The accused was ready to deposit the check amount and the interest calculated by the court and the compensation amount deposited in the court, then the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed that if the accused deposited the amount of compensation, interest calculated by the court, then he deposited the amount during the trial. can stop proceedings under section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which will result in immunity. Such a situation does not appear in this case. The interest amount is also deposited by the accused after passing the judgment as per the directions given in the judgment. The proceedings before the Trial Court had been completed and the judgment had been passed. In such a situation, action is not possible as per section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, this instance being different in facts is not helpful to the accused. The grounds of revision in this Court have been given that the accused is the registered owner of the vehicle and the applicant plaintiff was operating the said vehicle being a power of attorney. The applicant is a trader of food grains and he was taking the grain from the market for purchase and sale. The applicant had presented the purchase receipt of food grains before the trial court. The Trial Court has made an error by not paying attention to these facts; the Trial Court has made an error in dismissing the application on the ground of repetition of the offence. On the basis of the District Magistrate having started the process of confiscation of the vehicle, the Trial Court has rejected the application, while the Judicial Magistrate's right of delivery is affected on receipt of information about the action to be forfeited in the Food and Grain Prohibition Act and the Confiscation Prevention Act. Doesn't happen. The vehicle is read in the open in the police station, which is likely to be damaged. Therefore, after accepting the revision, a demand has been made to set aside the order of the trial court and to hand over the said vehicle to the registrar. According to the copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, presented by the learned counsel of the Inspector, it is clear that under the Food and Grain Percentage Act, there is no such provision as per the Excise Act that the District Magistrate should initiate the proceedings for the confiscation of the vehicle. On receipt of the information, the Judicial Magistrate does not have the right to give the vehicle on interim delivery.