JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned public Prosecutor. 2. This petition u/s. 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against an order of the learned Addl. Munsiff Magistrate 1st Class, Aklera dated 25-9-81. An FIR No. 96/81 was lodged against Saffi Mohamad Driver of the Truck No. RSR 2755, u/ss. 279 and 338 I.P.C. on 19 9-1981. The applicants being the owners of the Truck, submitted an application in the court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate Aklera on 22-9-1981 for the custody of the aforesaid truck and also made a prayer that as the truck was badly damaged they may be permitted to take the same to a city for getting it repaired. The trial court ordered that the possession of the truck be given to the applicants on furnishing a surety of Rs. 70,000/-. The trial court further gave a direction that the truck be kept in the same condition as it was on the date of the order, will not make any change in its shape and will not sell or pledge it. The applicants have furnished the surety of Rs. 70,000/- and have taken the truck in their possession. The applicants have now filed this petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that truck in question is lying in a damaged condition and it is very necessary to repair it in order to bring it in a running condition. It is submitted that in view of the conditions put by the learned trial court, it is not possible for the applicants to get it repaired and as such it is prayed that the applicants be permitted to get it repaired so as to bring it in a running condition. It is also submitted that mechanical inspection of the truck has already been done and in case the truck is allowed to be repaired, it is not going to effect the merits of the case in any manner. Learned Public Prosecutor has no objection in case permission is given for getting the truck repaired, but he submits that the appellants be directed to submit the photo-graphs of the truck in the present condition and thereafter the applicants may be permitted to get it repaired. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has no objection in case permission is given for getting the truck repaired, but he submits that the appellants be directed to submit the photo-graphs of the truck in the present condition and thereafter the applicants may be permitted to get it repaired. 4. In my view there should not be any difficulty if the applicants are allowed to get the truck repaired as no useful purpose would be served in keeping the same in damaged condition. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that the applicants will neither sell nor pledge nor hypothecate it. The applicants in these circumstances are permitted to make repairs in the truck. It is further directed that the applicants will take the photographs of the truck from all sides as it is existing now and submit those photographs before the trial court. The applicants thereafter will be permitted to make repairs in the truck. The other conditions put in the order dated 25-9-82 shall remain intact. 5. The application is accordingly disposed of in the manner indicated above.Order accordingly. *******