The court emphasized the temporary nature of the interim arrangement under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to protect or preserve the property pending trial.

Hon'ble Rajesh Tandon, J. ;

Heard Sri K. S. Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and A.G.A. for the State. By the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. petitioners have challenged the order dated 15th February, 2003 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar by which Criminal Revision No. 208/02 has been dismissed. The petitioners have prayed for the release of truck no. HR-02A/4721 in favour of the applicant no. 2.

2. Briefly stated Sri Ramesh Chandra, Forest Guard of Forest Department Uttaranchal who was posted in Bhojpur Forest Area in District Haridwar on 30.11.2000 has made a search of truck no. HR-02A/4721. In pursuance of the search the applicant no. 1 was arrested with Khair wood. He lodged a first information report (FIR) at P. S. Laksar district Haridwar. On the basis of FIR dated 30.11.2000 a case Under Section 26/41/42/77 of the Forest Act and Under Section 9/51 of the Wild Life Protection Act was registered against the applicant no. 1, namely, Sri Gurnam Singh at P. S. Laksar district Haridwar.

3. According to the prosecution story at the time of the alleged incident when the applicant no. 1 was arrested, the above truck seized from the possession of the applicant no. 1 and the same was taken by the Forest Department in its possession and the same is or the present in the custody of the Forest Department.

4. Undisputedly the truck no. HR02A/4721 was financed by the applicant no. 2 who is also claiming himself to be the real owner of the truck.

5. On 1st February, 2002 the Learned C.J.M. Sri K. D. Bhatt. Haridwar has rejected the application of the applicant no. 2, namely, M/s. S. S. Finance & Leasing Company on the ground that the earlier application filed by Sri Gurnam Singh was rejected on 17th August, 2001 and as such the application filed by the respondent no. 2 was rejected on 12.2.2002 by the C.J.M. Haridwar.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant no. 2, alone who is the financier has preferred a revision, the revision has been rejected with the following observations:

7. As well appear from the two orders that the application of the applicant no. 1 has been rejected on 17.8.200l.

8. The government counsel has stated that since the order dated 17.8.2001 has already become final and, therefore, the present application is not maintainable. On the other hand counsel for the petitioners have stated that the application of the applicant No. 1 was rejected and it was held that he was not entitled to file the application and as such applicant no. 2 has filed the application as well as the revision. Revisional court has recorded a finding that financier company is not the owner of the vehicle in question and, therefore, it cannot be released in his favour.

9. Coming to the merits of the controversy, since the vehicle of the applicant no. 1 has been financed by the applicant no. 2, if both the parties agree sufficient security may be given by the applicant no. 1 and 2 both in accordance with the provisions of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under: "Order of custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain Cases : When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any 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 and it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.

Explanation - For the purpose of this section "property" includes :(a) property of "any kind" or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody.

(b) Any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been for the commission of any offence."

10. According to the petitioners, in the present case since the