JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr. V.D. Kalla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.C. Bhati, Learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the order under challenge passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur dated 3rd November, 1981. 2. Jeep No. RJQ 4592 was seized by the officers of the Narcotics Department, Jodhpur on October 22, 1981. It was alleged that opium was recovered from that vehicle. Report was submitted at police station Soor-sagar and the case under Section 9 of the Opium Act was registered vide F.I.R. No. 116/1981. Petitioner Daulatram, claiming to be the registered owner of the Jeep, filed an application in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur, with the prayer that the vehicle lying at the police station will get damaged and, therefore, the same may be given to him on `Superdgi-nama'. He also prayed for the other articles tools etc. in the jeep to be handed over to him. The learned Magistrate vide order dated November 3, 1981, ordered that the tools, stepni and other implements may be given on Superdginama to the petitioner on his furnishing security bond for Rs. 2,000/- to produce those articles whenever called upon to do so. However the prayer to give the vehicle on Superdginama to the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the vehicle is suspected to have been used in committing the offence under Opium Act and in case it is returned to the petitioner, there is apprehension of further offences being committed which would be greater evil than the damage caused to the vehicle lying idle at the police station. Being dissatisfied by that order, the petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court by filing this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner produced before me the certified copy of the order of this Court passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 362/1976, Abdul Rauf v. State of Rajasthan, decided on August 21, 1976 , in similar petition filed under Section 452 Cr.P.C. and submitted that the order of the learned Magistrate may be set aside and he may be directed to give the vehicle on Superdginama to the petitioner. 4. Petition No. 362/1976, Abdul Rauf v. State of Rajasthan, decided on August 21, 1976 , in similar petition filed under Section 452 Cr.P.C. and submitted that the order of the learned Magistrate may be set aside and he may be directed to give the vehicle on Superdginama to the petitioner. 4. In the above referred decision of this Court, the question related to the Superdginama of a Car seized at a raid by the officers of the Narcotics Department having one secret chamber in the car, The learned Magistrate who decided the application for Superdginama, refused to accept the prayer on the ground that the secret chamber therein was particularly meant for committing offences and in case the vehicle was returned, it would again be used for committing offences. The aggrieved petitioner then preferred a revision petition in the Court of Session Judge, Jodhpur, who, while holding that it was an interlocutory order, opined that in such cases it is proper to handover the property in question on Superdginama. In pursuance of those observation, petitioner again filed an application before the Magistrate, who rejected the application on the ground of the risk of commission of the offence because of the vehicle having a secret chamber designed for the purpose of smuggling opium. When the matter came before this Court. His lordship deciding the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. agreed with the opinion expressed by the learned Sessions Judge and held that it was a fit case for exercise of inherent Jurisdiction of this Court. While accepting the revision petition, the Magistrate concerned was directed to deliver the vehicle in question to the petitioner on his executing an adequate Superdginama. 5. The decision in the above referred case is applicable with full force to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. When there is the report by the S.H.O., as referred to in the impugned order, that the jeep and the article therein were not required in the case, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the jeep there and allowing it to be damaged. It is therefore considered proper that the vehicle may be given to the owner on his furnishing adequate security for producing it whenever & wherever required. 6. It is therefore considered proper that the vehicle may be given to the owner on his furnishing adequate security for producing it whenever & wherever required. 6. In the result the petition is allowed and the learned Magistrate concerned is directed to deliver Jeep No. RJQ 4592, involved in the case, to the petitioner on his executing an adequate Superdginama in the terms fixed by that court.Petition allowed. *******