The expeditious and judicious exercise of powers under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. and the prevention of deterioration of seized property are crucial legal principles established in the judgment.

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 06.07.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Cr. Revision No.177 of 2017 by which he has rejected the revision application filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in Nokha P.S. Case No.225 of 2015 by which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for release of the truck bearing registration no.24G/1129 seized in connection with Nokha P.S. Case No.225 of 2015.

2. The undisputed facts of the case are as under:-

(a) The petitioner has been made accused in Nokha P.S. Case No.225 of 2015 registered under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. His truck bearing registration no.24G/1129 has been seized by the investigating officer of the case on 07.11.2015.

(b) After being released on bail in connection with the afore-stated case, he filed a petition for release of the seized vehicle in the Court of Sub Judge-IX-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram on 25.04.2017.

(c) The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram rejected his prayer vide order dated 26.05.2017 on the ground that the seized vehicle is a material exhibit in the police case as also the fact that the release of the vehicle may facilitate repetition of offence and would hamper investigation of the case.

(d) The petitioner filed a revision application against the order dated 26.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram vide Cr. Revision No.177 of 2017, which was also dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 06.07.2015 and the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram was affirmed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a registered owner of the truck in question which is a commercial vehicle and is only source of his livelihood. It has been kept in open air since its seizure in 2015. If it is not released, it would become junk and loose its utility. He submitted that the reasons assigned by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram as also the revisional court for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for release of the vehicle are patently bad in law as also on facts. The courts below have failed to notice the provisions prescribed under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. and have not even considered the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283].

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no illegality in the order impugned. The petitioner, being owner of the vehicle in question, is alleged to have utilized the vehicle for the purpose of committing dacoity. The allegations made against him were found true in course of investigation and, thus, he has been sent up for trial. He submitted that the vehicle in question is a material exhibit and would be required to be produced before the court at the time of trial. The revisional court has appreciated the facts and law in correct perspective and has passed a reasoned order, which does not warrant any interference by this Court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

6. Under Cr.P.C., Section 451 in Chapter XXXIV deals with disposal of property deals with the order for custody and disposal of property pending trial. It reads as under:-

“451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.-

When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural