A. R. TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed under - Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief arc that the vehicle bearing Registration No. DL-IC. B. 4778 Mahindra Commander Jeep is registered in the name of the father of the petitioner. The petitioner holds a power of attorney executed in his favour by his father Bhagwat Prasad Sharma. On 9/10/1992, this vehicle was intercepted by the Police Station, Sarangpur. Eventually this vehicle was seized by the police. The petitioner filed an application under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for obtaining the custody of this vehicle in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sarangpur. This application was, however, rejected on 29/4/1992. Against the order rejecting the prayer, the petitioner filed a Criminal Revision No. 64/92 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Shajapur. This Revision was also rejected on 9/7/1992. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking reversal of these order and grant of custody as prayed for by him. ( 3 ) THE petitioner, facing denial of delivery of vehicle to him as an interim measure, thus seeks interference by this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 4 ) THREE things stare in the face. One, the vehicle in question was seized by the police from the possession of the petitioner. Two, the vehicle is registered in the name of the father of the petitioner, thus making him a registered owner and the petitioner holds a power of attorney from his father. Three. No rival claim was put forward in oppugnation as regards the custody of this vehicle. ( 5 ) NORMALLY the aforesaid features must be taken to be sufficient for the prayer in terms of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The courts below, however, entertained suspicion of the documents as also the exact number of the vehicle. It may be observed that inconsequential errors here and there, cannot totally destroy or dislodge the claim, more so when the custody as claimed was bound to one of an interim nature. Machine, when kept idle and out of use, is prone to lose its efficacy and utility and as such, must be seen in action. The damage to the vehicle otherwise may be irreparable. Machine, when kept idle and out of use, is prone to lose its efficacy and utility and as such, must be seen in action. The damage to the vehicle otherwise may be irreparable. Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as under:451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases when any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property 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. ( 6 ) THE discretion to be exercised under the aforesaid section must be proper and judicious. It cannot be arbitrary. ( 7 ) HAVING considered the Submissions made by the parties, I see no justification in refusing the prayer of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the impugned orders are set aside. The application filed by the petitioner in the court below is allowed. it Tis, therefore, directed that the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sararigpur shall deliver the aforesaid vehicle to the petitioner for its proper custody pending conclusion of the trial upon his executing Supratnama in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 (Two lacs rupees) for production the property in the court as and when directed, and for not making any alteration/addition in the vehicle. ( 8 ) THIS petition, therefore, stands allowed in the terms indicated as aforesaid. Petition allowed. .