Rajiv Roy, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. This is an application for quashing of the order dated 2.4.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in Bela P.S. Case No. 27 of 2014 by which the learned Magistrate rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing the vehicle i.e. Pick Up Van bearing Registration No.-BR 06GB-1999 as well as the revisional order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Criminal Revision No. 57 of 2015 dated 12.5.2015 by which the learned Sessions Judge rejected the revision application filed by the petitioner against the order of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petitioners further prays for grant of any other relief or reliefs for which he is entitled thereto.

3. As per the prosecution story, the allegation has been made that the informant was working as a ‘chowkidar in Sanjay Foundry Factory which was closed and on 25.10.2014, in the night, after locking the factory, he was talking with some people when it is alleged that 10-11 boys aged about 20-25 years covering their face came inside the factory and on the point of gun apprehended them.

4. They further snatched the mobiles and keys of the door and brought white colour Pick Up Van inside the factory, loaded the articles and then escaped. Accordingly, the Bela P.S. Case No. 27 of 2014 was instituted under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The police investigated the matter and charge-sheet submitted on 20.1.2015 as well as supplementary affidavit charge-sheet on 2.6.2015 followed by the cognizance.

6. As stated above, the petition has been filed for the release of the vehicle (Pick Up Van having Registration No. BR 06GB-1999).

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner straightway took this Court to an order of Hon’ble Apex Court in C.M. Mudaliar vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 638 and referred to para-4 of the said order which read as follows: –

“4. Learned Counsel further referred to the relevant Sections 451 and 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which read thus –

“451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an 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 decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.

Explanation. – For the purposes of this section, “property” includes –

(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody,

(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.

457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property. – (1) Whenever the seizure of property by any Police Officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.

(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation, specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclam