Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

1. This petition has been filed assailing order, dated 22nd February, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as impugned order) passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court) in Case No. 64/4 of 2018, titled as Rati Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, in Case FIR No. 54 of 2017, dated 19th October, 2017, registered in Police Station Shillai, District Sirmaur, under Section 39(1)A of H.P. Excise Act, whereby application preferred by the petitioner under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) for release of vehicle No. HP18-B0983 has been dismissed in default for want of presence of applicant (petitioner herein) or his authorized representative.

2. Petitioner is claiming himself to be purchaser of the aforesaid vehicle on the basis of agreement of sale executed between registered owner, i.e. Shri Jagdish Chand S/o Shri Raiya Ram R/o Village Sail, P.O. Hallan, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmaur, H.P. and the petitioner, photocopy whereof has been placed on record.

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as per prosecution case, the vehicle has been impounded for illegal transportation of liquor, with further submission that even the said allegation, without conceding and admitting the same, is considered to be true, there was no consent or permission or authority or licence or direction on behalf of the petitioner to anyone to use the vehicle for transporting anything in contravention of any law and as the vehicle was used for alleged offence without any connivance, knowledge or permission of the petitioner, the vehicle deserves to be released on supurdarinama in favour of the petitioner in view of the ratio of law laid down by the apex Court in case titled as State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Madhukar Rao, (2008) 14 SCC 624, for the reason that idle parking of vehicle for a long time, during pendency of trial, that too, in open under the sun and rain etc. would definitely result into serious damages to the vehicle causing irreparable loss to the petitioner.

4. It is also canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that on account of further detention of the vehicle, it will convert into a junk and it will not be possible to ply the same on road after a prolonged detention. It is further canvassed that the vehicle is the source of earning of livelihood of the petitioner and its detention during trial amounts to infringement of fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner is not able to ply his commercial vehicle, which is source of living for him and his family.

5. It is further contended that no fruitful purpose is going to be served by continuing the detention of vehicle in police custody.

6. Relying upon pronouncement of the apex Court in case titled as Madan Lal Kapoor vs. Rajiv Thapar and Others, (2007) 7 SCC 623, it is argued that no criminal matter can be dismissed for default and every such matter must be decided on merits. It is contended that the trial Court has committed a material irregularity and illegality by passing an arbitrary and irrational order in a mechanical manner without any application of judicial mind, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice.

7. Placing reliance upon pronouncement of the apex Court in case titled as Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, it is also argued that the trial Court has failed to follow the guidelines laid down by the apex Court for exercising the power by the Magistrate under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC with regard to the disposal of mudammal articles kept in police custody during pendency of trial, wherein it has specifically been observed by the apex Court that power under Section 451 CrPC should have been exercised keeping in view various purposes required to be served under this Section, which, in present case, are a