Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J.

Affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist is taken on record. Since A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of opposite parties, no need to issue notices to opposite party nos.1 & 2, who are State of U.P. and Sub-Inspector of State Police.

Heard Shri B.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for revisionist and the learned A.G.A.

This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 13.06.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Maharajganj in Misc. Case No.249 of 2016 (State Vs. Narain Chhetri and others) filed in case crime no.1114 of 2015, under Section 8, 20, 23 of the N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Nichlaul, District Maharajganj refusing to release the vehicle Scooty Honda Activa no. UP-56P-3793 in favour of its registered owner, the revisionist.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is the registered owner of vehicle in question and is not named in the FIR; that the vehicle has been kept in open campus of police station, due to which the same is getting damaged and decayed, diminishing its value; that no offence has been committed by the revisionist or the vehicle and no contrabands were ever recovered from the vehicle in question, rather the recovery has been falsely planted; that the learned Magistrate has acted wrongly with material irregularity in rejecting the release application in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dinesh Kumar Verma (2005) 9 SCC 330; that the judgment of above reported case shows that the order of High Court releasing the vehicle during trial was set aside by Apex Court in view of facts of that case and no principle of law was laid down; that no proceedings for confiscation of vehicle in question were ever initiated or were pending and on account of the provisions of confiscation, if any, the release of vehicle may not be refused; that in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat 2003 (46) ACC 223, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the vehicle in question may be released in favour of revisionist; that the revisionist undertakes to abide the conditions, if any, imposed on release of vehicle, and to produce the vehicle, if and when required by the court or confiscating authority.

Learned A.G.A. supported the impugned order and opposed the revision.

The provisions of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. are as under:-

"Section 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."

In present era of revolution in the field of electronics and technology, refusal from release of vehicle in favour of its registered owner, where there is no other claimant, on the ground of its being case property, or without assigning any appropriate reason, may not be held to be just and appropriate. The provisions of Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure gives absolute power to Magistrate/court concerned to order for proper custody of vehicle and to release the same in custody of its owner. In such matters the Magistrates or courts concerned are required to exercise their discretion expeditiously and judicially.

Judicial notice of the state affairs and facts may be taken that, 'upon recovery of one or the other vehicle in connection with some crime, the police has to keep it in its custody within the campus of police station concerned, and duty bound to produce it as and when required by the court, unless and otherwise ordered to be released in custody of a person by the court. It is also notew