The court affirmed that seized property should be released promptly under Section 451 CrPC to prevent unnecessary custody and deterioration.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Lavania, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record.

2. The present application has been filed seeking following main relief:-

"(a) To Quash the impugned Order dated 14-10-2024 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court NO. 7. Unnao, dismissing the application for release of vehicle Motor Cycle No. U.P. 35BJ-6036 in favour of the Petitioner. Session Trial No. 182/2024 State of U.P. vs. Ram Chandra, as Case Crime No. 353/2023 Under section 302/201 IPC, P/S-Makhi, District-Unnao.

(b) To, Release of vehicle registration number-UP35BJ-6036 to the effect that the Petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle and the Petitioner's vehicle is getting damaged by standing in the open place for last one year in the police station premises Makhi."

3. By means of the present application, the applicant has assailed the order dated 14.10.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court NO. 7. Unnao (in short 'Court') in Case Crime No. 353/2023, under section 302/201 IPC, P/S-Makhi, District-Unnao. The order dated 14.10.2024 being relevant reads as under:-

4. Vide order 14.10.2024, quoted above, the Court has rejected the application seeking release of vehicle i.e. Motor Cycle No. UP35BJ-6036 preferred by the applicant.

5. The matter relates to release of vehicle. Accordingly, it would be apt to indicate the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard.

6. In the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, on the subject, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

"7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, 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 over possession of the article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and

4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.

8. The question of proper custody of the seized article is raised in a number of matters. In Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore, (1977) 4 SCC 358 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 598 this Court dealt with a case where the seized articles were not available for being returned to the complainant. In that case, the recovered ornaments were kept in a trunk in the police station and later it was found missing, the question was with regard to payment of those articles.

In that context, the Court observed as under: (SCC p. 361, para 4)

“4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject- matter of an offence is seized by the police it ought not to be retained in the custody of the court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The High Court and the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing that one of the essential requirements of the Code is that the articles concerned must be produced before the court or should be in its