JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is a proprietor of firm M/s. Kalyan Craft in Zohari Bazar, Jaipur. He deals in Gems, Precious Stones and Semi-precious Stones. On the night between 5-6 January, 1990 a theft took place in his shop by breaking open the locks. All valuables kept in the shop were taken away. These items were kept in small packets on which steaker of the firm was affixed. He lodged the report and the police arrested the accused Jitendra Kumar @ Sunny and the stolen items were recovered from him. The petitioner moved an application before the trial Magistrate for releasing the stolen items in his favour but his application was rejected on 22nd January, 1990 on the ground that the identification of the articles has not been made and the investigation was pending. After the identification of the articles he again moved an application but the same was refused on 2nd March, 1990. Thereafter the petitioner moved a petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. before this court and this was disposed on 20th July, 1990. It was ordered that the custody of the gems, jewels, precious and semi-precious stones be delivered to him on his furnishing a superdginama in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000 (Rupees Four lacs) on the condition that he shall produce the articles in court on all the dates of hearing and as and when required by the trial court and that he shall not dispose them during the pendency of the trial or without the previous permission of the trial court. He shall keep the articles in a sealed condition as sealed by the court. 2. The trial of the case proceeded for sometime but on 7th December, 1990 the accused absconded and since then no progress has been made in the case and the accused has not been arrested and produced before the court so far. The petitioner applied for permission to sell the goods but the same was refused vide order dated 16th March, 1991. He has now preferred this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. for seeking permission to dispose the articles which have been handed over to him. 3. The petitioner applied for permission to sell the goods but the same was refused vide order dated 16th March, 1991. He has now preferred this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. for seeking permission to dispose the articles which have been handed over to him. 3. It has been contended that the valuables have been sealed and delivered to him but he is not able to carry on his business as a condition has been imposed that they shall be kept in the condition in which they have been sealed by the Court. According to him he has small business and he requires the articles for sale as and when he finds a customer and for this he may be permitted to sale these articles. He has retained the goods for a long time but as the accused is not traceable and is absconding the end of the trial is also not in sight. 4. Reliance has been placed on Asian Paints (India) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 1985 RLR 704 in which permission to sell a car involved in an accident was given after having photographs from different angles. In Bairaj Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 Cr.LJ 1374, the Punjab and Haryana High Court discussed the effect of non-production of case property including the property in respect of which the offence has been committed. It was held that mere non-production would not by itself vitiate the subsequent conviction of the accused: It was also observed that the conviction in a criminal trial rests on the direct testimony and the credibility and not merely on the technicalities of the case and the property is only a corroborative piece of evidence. 5. Section 451 Criminal Procedure Code which deals with custody and disposal of the property pending trial provides for proper custody of the property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial and if it is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. According to this provision, the court can sell or dispose the property if in its opinion it is necessary to do so and if it passes such order and if thinks necessary, it can record such evidence as is considered proper. According to this provision, the court can sell or dispose the property if in its opinion it is necessary to do so and if it passes such order and if thinks necessary, it can record such evidence as is considered proper. In the present case, the property is gems and jewels, precious and semi-precious stones and for nearly three years have been kept in sealed condition and the trial court is not proceeding because the accused is absconding. In such circumstances, it is futile to wait for the conclusion of the trial as it would endlessly deprivation of the petitioner from making use of his property and continue his business. The accused in this case from whose possession the property was recovered has not claimed the same as his own. In the circumstances, the petitioner can be allowed to dispose the property but before doing so, the trial Magistrate shall follow the procedure and impose the following conditions:- (1) Statements of the Complainant as well as of the recovery witnesses shall be recorded; (2) Papers covering the stones shall be retained in the court after marking exhibit number on the same. (3) The value of the stones shall be assessed by calling some expert; (4) Colour photographs of the property wrapped in papers as well as after opening them shall be taken and placed oh record in triplicate. (5) The petitioner shall undertake to pay the amount of the value assessed in case it is subsequently found that the petitioner was not entitled to get the property for which he shall furnish surety of two persons. With these observations, this petition is allowed. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court alongwith the record. *******