1Manzoor Ahmed Wani, petitioner, seeks quashing of order dated 24-5-2005 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramban, whereby he has directed the police to take possession of vehicle No. 4456 / DL6CK during the currency of proceedings titled 'State v. Manzoor Ahmed' under S.379, 467, 468, 471 and 429, RPC before him, after cancelling the Supurdari of the petitioner, who was allowed to retain it in terms of his earlier order dated 14-8-2003.

2. Sh. O. P. Thakur, learned counsel for petitioner, submits that the order impugned in the petition amounts to review of order dated 14-8-2003, which course was impermissible. He further submits that learned Sessions Judge had invoked jurisdiction under S.517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provision was not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case because power under S.517, Cr. P. C. could be exercised only at the time the trial is concluded.

3. Sh. B. S. Salathia, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State has on the other hand submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramban, does not suffer from any error of law and has been passed in the interests of justice and to ensure that no prejudice is caused to the prosecution during the trial of the case. Sh. Salathia submits that the petitioner has been proved to be involved in the case, in which the vehicle was seized and if the vehicle continues to remain with the petitioner, this would result in permitting the accused to destroy the evidence, which the vehicle would furnish against the petitioner. Sh. Salathia further submits that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramban, does not result in miscarriage of justice. It, on the other hand, has been passed to protect the interests of justice. He prays for rejection of the petition.

4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

5. True, it is, that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramban, has refererd to S.517, Cr. P. C., in his order while directing that the vehicle in question would remain in the Supurdari of learned Judicial Magistrate, Banihal, while the trial had not yet concluded; but this defect would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner because learned Sessions Judge did possess the jurisdiction to pass orders for the custody of the vehicle under S.516 - A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For facility of reference, S.516 - A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is reproduced as under : -
"516 - A. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.
When any property regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence, is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such orders 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 or natural decay or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court, may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of."

6. In view of what is contained in S.516 - A, Cr. P. C., I would treat the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramban, as the one passed under S.516 - A, Cr. P. C. Learned Sessions Judge has given following reasons for passing the order impugned in the petition. These reasons read, thus : -
"The Court during hearing, asked Mr. Salim Raja Advocate counsel of supurdar to show RC of vehicle No. 4456 DL6CK so that the Court takes a decision after going through th