ORDER

1. This revision petition arises out of the order date 23.11.2020, by which the trial Court has rejected the application for release of the vehicle; Maruti Suzuki Alto bearing registration No.M.P.30C.2239 seized in connection with Crime No.486/2020 registered at Police Station Dehat Bhind for the offences under sections 307, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and sections 25, 27, 30 of Arms Act.

2. As per the prosecution story, two 315 bore guns, one cartridge and one revolver were seized from the aforesaid car allegedly used in commission of the aforesaid crime.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court committed error of law and fact while rejecting the application. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore reported in (1977) 4 SCC 358, learned counsel submits that the trial Court ought to have released the vehicle as the same shall be subject to deterioration being exposed to weather conditions and also subject to natural decay. The same shall also result into drastic devaluation of the vehicle. It is submitted that the object of the Code is that any property which is in the control of the Court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the Court by passing a just and fair order, of course, on such terms and conditions this Court deem fit and proper. In the instant case, though it has been alleged that the guns and revolver kept in the car were used but this by itself would not justify to continue seizure of vehicle.

4. Per contra, Shri R.P.Singh, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the revision supporting the order impugned with the submission that the proximity of the car with the alleged crime is well evident as both the guns and revolver kept in the car were taken out while committing the alleged offence. Therefore, no ground is made out for release of the car.

5. This Court has duly considered the submissions advanced and also has perused the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil (supra). For ready reference para 4.

thereof is quoted below :-

“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 custody. The object of the Code seems to be that any property which is in the control of the Court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the Court and a just and proper order should be passed by the Court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the Court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance.”

6. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and regard being had to the facts in hand, it is the guns and revolver which allegedly have been used in the c