The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the powers conferred upon the court under Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. in the context of releasing impounded vehicles in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - This criminal revision petition at the instance of the accused-petitioner takes exception to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, dated 12.06.2018, whereby the application filed for release of vehicle was ordered to be dismissed.

2. The accused-petitioner has sought release of vehicle bearing registration No. HP-31A-7872 alongwith its documents and key, which had been taken into possession by the police in case FIR No. 18 of 2018, dated 16.01.2018, registered under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC.

3. It was averred that the petitioner was registered owner of the vehicle in question, which has been impounded by the police in the aforesaid FIR. Investigation of the case was completed. Since the vehicle was no longer required by the police, therefore, the same be released in his favour by imposing suitable and reasonable conditions.

4. The respondent-State filed its reply wherein it is clearly stated that they have no objection to release of the vehicle. However, the learned Court below rejected the application on the ground that "the vehicle being case property, at this stage, it cannot be released."

5. Evidently, the learned Court below has betrayed its complete ignorance to nature and scope of powers conferred upon it under Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Cr.P.C., whereby ample power has been conferred upon the Court as regards the custody and disposal of case property pending trial in certain cases.

6. The powers under the aforesaid Sections are to be exercised by Court of law in quick and expeditious manner bearing in mind (i) the owner of the vehicle should not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; (ii) Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; (iii) if the proper panchnama before handing over the possession of vehicle is prepared that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence should be recorded mentioning the nature of the property in detail.

7. As per the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Bihar and others , (2001) 9 SCC 718, wherein the Court in whose custody the vehicle was kept was ordered to be released on the following conditions:

1. He shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.

2. He must satisfy the court that he is the registered owner of the vehicle.

3. He shall not allow his son Deepak Singh to use the vehicle until disposal of the prosecution case against him. He shall file an undertaking in court to that effect.

4. He shall produce the vehicle either before the court or before such other authorities as the court may direct.

5. He will not transfer the vehicle to anybody else nor possession of the same be parted with until disposal of the case.

8. It is to be noted that learned trial Court can also take photographs of the vehicle in issue and also take bond from the petitioner that the vehicle would be produced as and when required by the Court.

9. In this regard, the Court is fully empowered to take appropriate security, the purpose of which is to prevent evidence being destroyed, altered or lost.

10. As already observed above, this Court is of the view that the learned Court below while rejecting the application has not borne in mind the observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat , (2003) AIR SC 638, wherein it was observed as under:-

"7.In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purpose, namely:-

1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;

2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody.

3. If the proper panchnama before handing ov