Point of Law: It is settled law of land that it is of no use to keep the seized vehicle at police station for a long period and it was directed to Magistrate to release above vehicle after taking sufficient guarantee/surety.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for revisionist Sri Ghaus Beg, learned AGA and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for revisionist submitted that he inadvertently impleaded Judicial Magistrate in the array of opposite party and learned counsel for revisionist submitted that he want to delete the opposite party no.1 Judicial Magistrate-III. Submission of learned counsel for revisionist is hereby allowed and it is directed to delete the same.

3. This Criminal Revision has been preferred u/s 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against the impugned order dated 21.1.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-III, Lucknow, whereby without assigning any cogent reason the learned trial court has rejected the application dated 24.1.2020. Being aggrieved with impugned order dated 24.1.2020 this revision preferred by the revisionist in respect of release of vehicle bearing registration no. UP-32/CN5543 (Bus).

4. Learned counsel for revisionist submitted that revisionist is the registered owner of vehicle no. UP-32/CN5543 (Bus). On 18.10.2019 the above mentioned vehicle met with an accident near Purniya Chaurah under P.S. Madiyaon, Lucknow with motor cycle bearing registration no. UP32-KR-1795. In the said incident no one has got injury. However, the said motor cycle was partially damaged. In this behalf, Sri Krishan Kant Kushwaha lodged FIR on 18.10.2019 against unknown person as a Case Crime No. 947/2019 u/s 279, 337, 427 IPC, P.S. Madiyaon, Lucknow which is annexed as Annexure No. 4. The vehicle of the revisionist was seized and detained at P.S. Madiyaon on 18.10.2019.

5. The revisionist preferred the application on 27.1.2020 before ACJM, IV, Lucknow for release of the vehicle but the Magistrate concerned vide the order dated 5.3.2020 rejected the said release application on flimsy grounds in an illegal and arbitrary manner by stating that accused of this crime failed to surrender before the court and the license of the driver is not duly verified.

6. Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 5.3.2020 passed by learned Magistrate the revisionist preferred the Revision No. 204/2020 on 17.8.2020. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow allowed the said revision and set aside the order dated 5.3.2020 and remanded the matter to the learned trial court with direction to consider the release application. After hearing the parties the revisional court passed the order dated 15.12.2021 in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V/s State of Gujarat, AIR 2003, Supreme Court, Page No. 638 which is annexed as Annexure No. 8.

7. The relevant portion of which is being reproduced hereunder:

"In our view, whatever be the situation it is of no use to keep seized vehicle at the police stations for a long period so it is for the magistrate to pass appropriate order immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security return of the said vehicle at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of application for return of such vehicle.

In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle could be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared.

However those powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under section 451 CrPC are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case for not more than fifteen days to one month."

8. In pursuance of order dated 15.12.2021 passed by learned Revisional Court, revisionist approached before the Judicial Magistrate-III and again moved the application in the light of the direction given by the learned Revisional Court. But the learned Magistrate rejected the release application dated 21.1.2003 without considering the direction given by learned Revisional Court to consider the release appl