ORDER

1. The petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision under section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 26.7.2021 passed by Special Judge (Dacoity), Bhind in Case No. 180/21 MJCR in respect of Crime No.51/21, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under section 451 of Cr.P.C. for taking the possession of the seized vehicle has been rejected.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that FIR was registered against the petitioner at Crime No.51/21 by Police Station Gormi, District- Bhind (M.P.) for the offences punishable under sections 399, 400, 402, subsequently enhanced 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 201 of the IPC, 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act and 25/27 of the Arms Act stating therein that in the night intervening 24th and 25th of February 2021, upon information received from an informer, Police reached the spot and found that 5-6 armed miscreants were planning to commit dacoity. Four of them including the petitioner were apprehended, while one fled from the spot. Apart from arms recovered from the possession of accused persons, one Swraj Tractor 735 FE (without number) and a white colour Triber Car bearing registration number UP-74-AB-2392 belonging to the petitioner was seized from the spot.

3. The petitioner being a registered owner of the said Triber Car bearing Registration Number UP-74-AB-2392 filed an application under section 451 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court for releasing the aforesaid vehicle which was dismissed vide order dated 26.7.2021. Being aggrieved by the same, this Criminal Revision has been filed before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle and the aforesaid vehicle is in custody of Police and is lying in open sky while it requires continuous maintenance from time to time and if it is kept locked, the engine and other parts of the said vehicle will be out of order and the same will become useless for any work.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is no use of keeping the said vehicle in police custody for years till the trial is over. Trial is not likely to conclude in near future and may take long time. In such circumstances, it would be just and proper to release the said vehicle of the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer and submitted that the Court below has rightly rejected the application. He further submits that no palpable error on the face of record has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner in the order impugned. The said vehicle would be required during the trial for describing the nature of the property in detail, therefore he prays for dismissal of the instant petition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties.

8. The apex Court in the case of Sundar Bhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujrat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 has laid down the procedure for disposal of the valuable items like currency, liquor, vehicle and narcotics drugs and has held as under :-

“Powers under section 451 of Cr.P.C. 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 panchanama before handing over possession of 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 properly 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.

9. On bare reading of the said dictum laid down by the Apex Court, section 451 of Cr.P.C. clearly empowers the Court to pass appropriate order with regard to such property, such as

(1) for the proper custody pending conclusion