JUDGMENT 1. - Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the application for return of truck which was seized by the police may be taken up for hearing today. The prayer is not opposed and learned Public Prosecutor has no objection if the application is heard today. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public prosecutor on the merits of the application. It appears that petitioners truck No. RJB 1933 was hired by another person for carrying two bag, of sugar. On suspicion that the sugar might have been purchased in black market, the police officials at Police Station Danpur seized the truck and the two bags of sugar found therein, under section 102 Cr.P.C.. After making an enquiry, Station House Officer, Police Station, Danpur made a report to the Judicial Magistrate, Banswara that the two bags of sugar were found to be properly purchased and appeared to be lawfully carried. 3. Inspite of the aforesaid police report dated March 28, 1981, Judicial Magistrate, Banswara by his order dated March 31, 1981 observed that there was suspicion about two bags of sugar which were carried away in the truck and he was unable to come to a definite conclusion, as such the applications of the owners of the truck and sugar could not allowed at that stage. The application was consequently rejected. 4. The Petitioner, who is the owner of the truck, has approached this Court for the release of the truck. Learned Public Prosecutor has raised two submissions, His first submission is that an application under section 452 Cr.P C. is not maintainable in this Court and his second submission is that the truck could have been seized under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. The first submission of the learned Public Prosecutor appeals to be justified but learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the application may be treated as one under section 482 Cr.P.C . No exception can be taken to the filing of an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. As regards the second submission, it may be pointed out that r.o action or proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act were taken in the matter and as such the provisions of that Act are not applicable to the present proceedings. 5. No exception can be taken to the filing of an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. As regards the second submission, it may be pointed out that r.o action or proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act were taken in the matter and as such the provisions of that Act are not applicable to the present proceedings. 5. I have perused the order passed by learned Magistrate and I am unable to find any justification, whatsoever, for keeping the truck under custody. Learned Magistrate has observed that there were circumstances which created suspicion of the commission of an offence in respect of two bags of sugar. After the police report dated March 28, 1981 was made, whether any such suspicion could still be sustained in respect of two bags of sugar need not be considered by me, because the present application has been moved only by the owner of the truck. The learned Magistrate has not said a word in his order that any suspicion could be aroused regarding the truck. I fail to find from the order of the learned Magistrate as to why it was necessary to keep the truck under custody any longer. The owner of the two bags of sugar ; had admittedly hired the truck belonging to the petitioner and this fact has been found to be established on an enquiry by the police, as is apparent from the report dated March 28, 1981, As such, the truck should not have been detained any longer. The order of the learned Magistrate, so far as the question of return of the truck is concerned can not be upheld. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. The order pissed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Banswara dated March 31, 1981 is set aside, so far as it relates to the return of the truck No. RJB 1933 is concerned and the said truck is directed to be returned to its registered owner, the petitioner, subject to the condition that the petitioner should execute a bond for the production of the truck before the Magistrate, whenever he may be required to do so, if any case is made out regarding the two bags of sugar which were carried in the truck.Application allowed. *******