As both these applications, involve common question, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

2] The vehicle bearing registration No. MP-28-A-0949 [Jeep] was belonging to applicant in Criminal Application No.3354 of 2004 and vehicle bearing registration No. MH-31-W- 7791 [pick-up-van] MP 28 A 0949 [Jeep] was belonging to applicant in Criminal Application No.1941 of 2005. They were allegedly transporting the fish collected from Wile Life Area as such same were seized by the Forest Officials. The applicants moved the applications for releasing the said vehicles on their Supratnama before the learned J.M.F.C. Ramtek. He rejected those applications by his orders dated 29.9.2004 and 3.12.2004. The revision applications were preferred against those orders, bearing Criminal Revision No.590/2004, which was decided on 30.10.2004 and Revision 795/2004 which was decided on 15.6.2005, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. The said revision applications were also dismissed and therefore, the applicants have preferred these applications under section 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge those orders seeking release of the said vehicles on Supratnama till the disposal of the proceedings.

3] Before considering the submissions of the parties, it is necessary to mention that this court vide order dated 21.3.2005 in Criminal Application no.3354/2004 passed order to release the vehicle on supratnama, which reads thus: .Heard both sides. Admit. Interim relief in terms of prayer clause ( c ). The vehicle shall be returned to the applicant on the condition that he furnishes cash deposit of bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.25000/- by way of security. The applicant shall furnish an undertaking to this Court that he shall not sell, transfer or alienate the vehicle or create any third party interest in the said vehicle in any manner. He shall not change the colour or identity of the vehicle in any manner and he shall produce the vehicle as and when required before the court or police agency or forest officials. On the guarantee or cash deposit and the undertaking being supplied, the vehicle shall be returned to the applicant. The undertaking to be supplied to th is court within a period of two weeks..

In Criminal Application no.1941/2005, this court had passed an interim order on 12.12.2005 which reads thus:

Rule. By way of interim order the vehicle of the applicant is directed to be released on Supratnama, on his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.1 lakh and further filing an undertaking before the trial court that the vehicle would be kept in the same condition as far as possible and that the vehicle would be produced as and when directed by the trial court..

It therefore, seems that in both these cases, the vehicles of the applicants have been released on supratnama on usual terms.

4] Learned counsel for the applicant Shri Nawab in Criminal application no.1941/2005 and Shri P.D. Meghe, in Criminal Application no.3354/2004 have submitted that the orders passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court are incorrect, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in (2002) 10 SC 283 [Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai ..vs.. State of Gujrat], wherein it has been held thus:

7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely: 1- owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its mis-appropriation; 2- court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; 3- if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and 4- this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised