Judgment :- 1. The simple questions for consideration in this petition filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are (1) Whether a police officer could seize a motor vehicle which did not involve in any accident simply for the reason that the driver committed an offence punishable under S.279 IPC while driving the vehicle, and (2) Whether while ordering custody of the vehicle under S.451 of the Code the Magistrate is entitled to impose conditions. 2. Petitioner is the owner of a Bus plying as a stage carriage. Third respondent was the driver. On 2-12-1985 at 11.05 a. m. when the bus was plying as a stage carriage the 2nd respondent arrested the third respondent for alleged commission of offence punishable under S.279 of the Indian Penal Code in driving the bus. The bus was also seized. Crime 755 of 1985 was registered and the bus was produced in court. On the application of the petitioner the Magistrate passed an order under S.451 of the Code giving interim custody to the petitioner on his executing a bond for rupees two lakhs with a further condition that he should produce the same whenever called for. Petitioner executed bond and obtained custody. 3. His case is that on account of the alleged offence corn milted by the third respondent in driving the Bus it did not get involve in any accident and since the only allegation is commission of the offence by the third respondent and not by the petitioner, the bus could not have been seized as a material object and the Magistrate was not entitled to impose any condition while ordering release of the bus. The prayer is only to quash the conditions imposed by the order of the Magistrate and direct release of the vehicle unconditionally holding that it is not a material object for the purpose of investigation or trial. 4. In fact the only question that has to be considered is whether the Bus was liable to be seized and produced before the court by the police. If seizure is necessary or expedient and it is seized the police officer is bound to produce the property immediately before court if it can be conveniently transported to the court and the Magistrate is bound to make such order as he thinks fit for the proper custody of the property or its production pending inquiry of trial. If seizure is necessary or expedient and it is seized the police officer is bound to produce the property immediately before court if it can be conveniently transported to the court and the Magistrate is bound to make such order as he thinks fit for the proper custody of the property or its production pending inquiry of trial. The Magistrate is entitled to give interim custody and impose conditions also for that purpose. That is only an interim arrangement and the person to whom custody is given does not get any right. Final disposal is only after conclusion of trial under S.452 and that too will only be subject to the decision of a competent civil court in cases of dispute. Till then it is only an arrangement made by the court for proper custody to preserve the property and the order does not determine title or even right to possession. The person to whom the property is entrusted is only holding the same on behalf of the court and is bound to produce the same in proper condition whenever directed by the court. For that purpose the court can impose conditions also. Such conditions cannot be the subject of interference by this Court in exercise of the inherent powers. 5. Under S.102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so far as necessary for the purpose of this case, any police officer may seize any property which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. There cannot be any dispute that the police officer claims to have found the Bus under circumstances which created in him at least a suspicion that it was involved in the commission of the offence punishable under S.279 of the Indian Penal Code. Though the offence was alleged to have been committed by the third respondent alone the allegation is that it was committed in relation to the driving of the Bus. S.279 of the Indian Penal Code reads: "Rash driving or riding on a public way. Though the offence was alleged to have been committed by the third respondent alone the allegation is that it was committed in relation to the driving of the Bus. S.279 of the Indian Penal Code reads: "Rash driving or riding on a public way. Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both". 6. In order to constitute the offence there need not be any accident or injury or death to individuals. Driving a vehicle on any public way in the manner specified in the section alone is sufficient. The provision is intended to protect the interest of society by avoiding danger to pedestrians and vehicular traffic mainly. Even without waiting for such danger happening the offender could be brought to justice and in so doing the police is only discharging their legitimate duty. Prevention of crimes and danger to society is also one of the duties of the police. The offence could be committed only in relation to the driving of a vehicle and therefore there cannot be any dispute that the vehicle involved roust be the property in relation to which the suspected offence was committed. Independent of the vehicle there cannot be the offence. Therefore the vehicle is the property involved in the offence committed by the driver. Whether the driving was with the permission of the owner or while in the course of his employment are not relevant considerations in relation to the offence which is attributed only against the driver and that too only in relation to the driving. 7. The counsel had no objection that the Bus would have been a material object in relation to the offence liable to be seized and produced before court provided it was involved in an accident while committing the offence. His only objection is that no accident occurred and therefore for the mere offence alleged to have been committed by the driver the vehicle cannot be taken as a material object liable to be seized and produced before court. His only objection is that no accident occurred and therefore for the mere offence alleged to have been committed by the driver the vehicle cannot be taken as a material object liable to be seized and produced before court. Even if the Bus got involved in an accident it could have been seized only as a material object in relation to which the offence took place. The only difference will be that if there was an accident there may be some more purpose served by the seizing of the Bus. Simply because no accident occurred it cannot be said that the Bus may not be necessary in connection with investigation, inquiry or trial. During investigation, inquiry or trial there can be dispute regarding identity of the vehicle or the driver. For that purpose seizure of the vehicle and its preservation during investigation, inquiry or trial may be necessary. Witnesses may have to be questioned in relation to the identity of the driver and the vehicle and during trial also that may become necessary. There can be other purposes like proof of the offence also involved. 8. If a vehicle which carried smuggled goods or some other contraband items could be seized and produced before court there is no reason why a vehicle involved in an offence under S.279 IPC without an accident could not be seized. The word used in S.102 Cr. PC is any offence. In 1978 (80) Bom. LIZ 337 corresponding to 1978 Man. Q 252 it was held that when a vehicle is detained and seized by a police officer for an offence of nonpayment of tax as required by the provisions of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act the seizure was valid and legal in view of S.102. 9. The order passed by the Magistrate is only an interlocutory one and it has not finally disposed of any right in dispute. The legislature in its wisdom did not want the, correctness, legality or propriety of such an order being questioned in revision. The order is not revisable. That difficulty cannot be allowed to be overcome by resort to inherent powers so long as no illegality or miscarriage of justice resulted. The legislature in its wisdom did not want the, correctness, legality or propriety of such an order being questioned in revision. The order is not revisable. That difficulty cannot be allowed to be overcome by resort to inherent powers so long as no illegality or miscarriage of justice resulted. So also investigation of crimes is the legitimate field of the police in which normally this Court will not interfere except in rare cases where interference is required in order to prevent miscarriage of justice and the abuse of process of law. No such situation has arisen in this case and what the police and the Magistrate did were only what they could lawfully do within their spheres of competence. Petitioner was not able to convince me of any illegality in the Seizure or the order for custody. If so this Court cannot interfere in exercise of the inherent powers with the action taken during investigation by the police or the order passed by the Magistrate. Petitioner got possession of the vehicle and no prejudice is also there. The petition is therefore dismissed.