JUDGMENT S.R. Bhargava, J. - On 11.8.1990 a first information report against unknown driver of taxi Ambassador UTN 6994 was lodged for offences under Sections 328 and 379 I.P.C. On the same day, this Ambassador car was found abandoned and was seized. Case was registered against unknown person. Revisionist applied for release of car. He came with the case that his Ambassador Car had been stolen. Learned Magistrate refused to release the car in favour of the revisionist on the ground that the car was used in crime and investigation was still in progress. 2. Against this, revisionist came to this Court. 3. State was granted time to file counter affidavit. But inspite of several opportunities State Counsel did not file counter-affidavit. 4. The matter involved in this revision is of urgent nature. If the car is allowed to remain in police custody at the police station, it may become junk by lapse of time. Sufficient time has now elapsed since the order of the Magistrate. If the revisionist is not himself the accused in the case and the investigation does not show reasonable ground to suspect him, the car can be entrusted to the revisionist on his furnishing adequate bonds and surety. Much has been argued on the claim of the petitioner but the Magistrate has yet to examine his Claim on merits. 5. In the circumstances, I finally dispose of this revision. Revision is allowed and the order under revision is set aside.,, The learned Magistrate shall decide the case relating to interim custody of the car and shall dispose of the same, according to the observations made above within three weeks. 6. A cop of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the revisionist on payment of usual charges within 48 hours.