The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seizure of a vehicle and its subsequent custody in the police station adversely affects the condition of the vehicle, and guidelines established by the Honble Supreme Court for releasing seized vehicles should be followed.

R.S. Chauhan, J.-The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.09.2005 whereby the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kathumar, District Alwar has dismissed his application under Section 457, CrPC (henceforth to be referred as the Code for short). He has further challenged the order dated 010.2005 whereby the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, District Alwar has upheld the former order and dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.09.2005 Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Khedli, District Alwar has lodged a FIR for offence under Sections 41 and 42 of the Forest Act, wherein he claimed that while he was on petrol he intercepted a tractor and trolly which was carrying the wood of Pipal tree. When he asked the driver, Suresh about his having the necessary documents for carrying the said wood, the driver denied having the necessary documents. Hence, prima facie offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Forest Act were committed. The said tractor bearing Registration No. RJ 02-R-5279 alongwith its trolly was seized by the police. Since, the said tractor had been bought by the petitioner from the registered owner Bhagwan Singh, he had filed an application under Section 457 of the Code before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Alwar. However, as mentioned above, vide order dated 21.09.2005, the said application was dismissed. Subsequently the petitioner had filed a revision petition before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Alwar. But, as mentioned above, vide order dated 010.2005 the said revision petition was also dismissed. Hence, this petition before us.

3. Mr. D.D. Khandelwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that according to the affidavit (Annexure-1), Bhagwan Singh has clearly stated that he had sold the said tractor to the petitioner. He has further argued that in catena of cases Honble the Supreme Court and this Court had held that the custody of the vehicle should be given back to the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, petitioner is entitled to the custody of the tractor and the trolly.

4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Arun Sharma has argued that until and unless the petitioner is not deprived of his vehicle, he would continue to violate the provisions of the Forest Act. Hence, he has supported both the impugned orders.

5. We have heard learned Counsel for both the parties and have perused the impugned orders.

6. It is, indeed, trite to state that in catena of cases the Honble Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that the seizure of a vehicle and its subsequent custody in the police station adversely affects the condition of the vehicle since the vehicle is consistently exposed to natural elements. Since, the vehicle is not used for an indefinite period its machinery and its condition deteriorates. The loss of vehicle is not only a personal loss to the owner, but is also a loss to the nation. Hence, both the Apex Court and this Court have repeatedly directed that the vehicle should be restored to the owner. In the case of Sundar Bhai Amba Lal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, 2002 (10) SCC 283, the Honble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines for releasing the vehicles in the following words as under:-

“In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner or the Insurance Company or by a third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the Insurance Company then the Insurance Company be informed