JUDGMENT 1. In this petition it has been prayed that the conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate in his order dated 15-6-87 passed about the handing over the Bus bearing Registration No. RND 5280 be modified. The petitioner which is a Corporate body is plying Buses all over the State and one of its bus of Hindaun Depot met an accident on 12-6-87 for which a case under Sections 279 & 337 IPC was registered. The vehicle was seized by the police and kept at police station Bazeerpur. The Depot Manager moved an application for handing over the vehicle on superdginama which was not opposed by the Station House Officer. The learned Magistrate directed the bus to be given on superdginama provided a surety in the amount of Rs. 1,00,000.00 was given and further directed that it should be produced in the court on each date of hearing and some more formal conditions were mentioned therein. In this petition the petitioner submits that R. S. R. T. C. is a public undertaking which is running hundred of buses everyday and there are minor accidents where the cases are registered and vehicles seized. Asking for the sureties from the Corporation would amount to abuse of the process, since individual officers may not be available at all times to fill in the surety bonds and, therefore, the undertaking before the Court to produce the vehicle by officer of the Depot or officer of the rank of inspector should be considered to be sufficient. It is submitted that when an officer is giving an undertaking he does so for and on behalf of the Corporation and the Corporation should be bound by the undertaking. It is further submitted that buses run on various routes and the trial even in minor cases takes sufficiently long time and if the vehicle is required to be produced on each and every date of hearing it would amount a huge loss to the Corporation and inconvenience to the travelling public. The learned counsel has relied on two decisions of this court (1) S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 392/87, R. S R. T C. v. State dated 10-6-87 decided by Hon'ble Israni J. and (2) petition No. 572/85 R S. R T.C. v. The State decided on 12.9.86 by Hon'ble G.M. Lodha J. where they have directed the vehicle to be released on an undertaking. 2. Misc. Petition No. 392/87, R. S R. T C. v. State dated 10-6-87 decided by Hon'ble Israni J. and (2) petition No. 572/85 R S. R T.C. v. The State decided on 12.9.86 by Hon'ble G.M. Lodha J. where they have directed the vehicle to be released on an undertaking. 2. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides. I had already taken a view in an earlier case (3) Vidyasagar Rastogi v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1985 RLR 376 that when the buses are seized in accident there is no question of confiscation involved and the learned Magistrate should not insist upon producing the vehicle in the court. The bus is required only for the purpose of identification by the witnesses in the court and this purpose can better be served by keeping the coloured photograph of cabinet size of the vehicle from different angles showing the registration number and keeping the details of the chasis number and the engine number on record. I need not repeat the seasonings but suffice it to say that to compel the owner of a vehicle to produce it in the court on each and every date of hearing is not only an abuse of the process of the court but it involves a great inconvenience to the owner of it and waste of petrol and energy of the person bringing the vehicle. In this modern age where there are various scientific methods of proving a particular fact one should not insist on traditional old methods and particularly when the litigation is multiplying and there are no chances of the cases being expeditiously disposed of. This disposes of the argument regarding producing the vehicle on each and every date of hearing. Regarding the surety bond it is true that it may be difficult for an officer available on the spot to stand as a surety for production of the vehicle and further that in that case it becomes the individual responsibility of the person giving the surety. But if a public undertaking like the R.S.R.T.C., is asked to give an undertaking through one of its functionaries it binds the Corporation and hence serves a better purpose. Besides this method would be lesser compursion. But if a public undertaking like the R.S.R.T.C., is asked to give an undertaking through one of its functionaries it binds the Corporation and hence serves a better purpose. Besides this method would be lesser compursion. In fact it behoves the R.S.R.T.C to get standardrised forms printed and issue an order authorising particular officers to furnish the undertakings in cases necessity arises and in case such authorised officer files an undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required by the Magistrate the vehicle should be handed over to the Depot concerned. 3. Consequently I allow this petition and direct that the vehicle shall be released on an undertaking given by a person authorised to give undertaking and on the Corporation's producing on record the coloured photographs in triplicate of Bus No. RND 528O showing its registration number. The photographs shall be taken in the presence of the investigating officer. This petition is disposed of accordingly.Petition allowed. *******