JUDGMENT This petition under section 451, 457 read with section 482 Cr.P.C. has been Wed against the order dated 14.8.92 of Sessions Judge, Shajapur, passed in Misc. Cri. Case No. 4542/92 in relation to Crime No. 61/92 of Police Station Barod. The brief history of the case is that police Barod seized opium from the possession of three persons Bherusingh, Pratapsingh and Prahalad, who were the occupants of Motor Cycle No. CIN 4654. Alongwith the opium this motor cycle was also seized. Thereafter, Kamalsingh filed an application before the Sessions Judge for motor cycle being given on 5upurdginama. Kamalsingh (applicant No.1 here) claims that he purchased the motor cycle on a price of Rs. 17,000/- from Hukamchand (applicant No. 2 here). It appears that he filed a deed of agreement and a deed of power of attorney regarding the motor cycle. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected the application and has observed that the registered owner of the vehicle is Hukamchand (applicant No.2 here). It has also been observed that there was no necessity of two documents. If the applicant has purchased the vehicle earlier there was no necessity of getting power of attorney. This petition has been filed against that order of rejection of vehicle being given on supurdginama. While filing this petition Hukumchand has also been made a party and he has come up as applicant. Hukumcland was not a party in the lower Court. As such he has approached this Court directly without making any prayer before the Sessions Judge. Normally without entering into the controversy of ownership of vehicle, a motor cycle is to be given to the person who holds a registration certificate and insurance certificate. In respect thereof it has been submitted that Hukumchand is the registered owner of the vehicle. This may not be out of place to mention here that the motor vehicle if kept idle gels rusted and this is a National waste. The motor vehicle should normally be given on supurdginuma after taking a sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the judge or Magistrate concerned. If it is required during evidence a photograph in the presence of the party and that too at the expenses of person who claims to be the owner may be taken and may be kept in the record under the signatures of all the parties that is accused and the claimant of the vehicle. If it is required during evidence a photograph in the presence of the party and that too at the expenses of person who claims to be the owner may be taken and may be kept in the record under the signatures of all the parties that is accused and the claimant of the vehicle. The Supurdgidar may further be directed to produce the vehicle on every date of hearing during evidence. In this case all these procedures have not been adopted. Since Hukamchand has not filed any application before the Sessions Judge it would not be proper to pass any order in favour of Hukumchand. However, Hukumchand is free to file fresh application before the Sessions Judge concerned for getting the vehicle on supurdginama. This petition is disposed of subject to above observations.