JUDGMENT 1. - The matter relates to interim custody of Truck No. URR 1480. The said Truck was seized by the Police on 21.4.91 in Criminal Case No. 146/91, registered under Sections 420 and 406 Indian Penal Code. The said report was lodged by one Mahabir Prasad in which it was alleged by him that the driver of the said truck was entrusted with 175 bags of 'Sarson' to be transported to the State of Bihar and the misappropriated the same: A Criminal case was registered against driver Kalyan Singh and the registered owner Mohmmod Ilias. It appears that both the accused were not arrested, though the truck was seized by the Police. The petitioner Company is engaged in the business of hire purchase of vehicles under hire purchase agreement. The aforesaid truck is said to have been financed by the said company on hire purchase agreement and an endorsement to this effect was made in certificate of registration of the truck. On behalf of the Company an application for the custody of the truck was moved, but the same was rejected by the learned Munsiff Magistrate, Deeg, vide his order dated January 28, 1992. A revision preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg on July 8, 1992. Hence, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. It is contended by the learned Counsel that the petitioner Company had financed on the said truck and about 3 lacs rupees are outstanding against the hire purchaser and as such, this company is interested in the safeguard and proper care of the truck. Learned Counsel contended that the truck is lying in open since last more than 21/2 years and there is every possibility of delay in the trial, as such, if the said truck is allowed to remain lying in the Police custody in this condition, it shall be completely spoiled and damaged by the time a final order for its delivery is passed. According to the learned Counsel, the said truck is the main source through which the amount of recovery is realised from the hire purchaser and when the registered owner or the driver did not care to approach the Court concerned for the custody of the said truck, the same be delivered to the petitioner-Company. According to the learned Counsel, the said truck is the main source through which the amount of recovery is realised from the hire purchaser and when the registered owner or the driver did not care to approach the Court concerned for the custody of the said truck, the same be delivered to the petitioner-Company. It was also contended that the custody of the said truck shall be made on certain terms and conditions and it shall be open to the concerned Court to direct the Company to return or produce the said truck as per its direction. 3. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that both the accused are still absconding as revealed from the orders of the Courts below and in case, they are declared absconder, the said truck can be forfeited to the State Government. 4. I have given my careful consideration to the above submissions. As stated earlier, presently we are concerned only for the 'safe interim custody of the truck and rights of the parties are not being determined at this stage. Presently, it is not disputed before me that the petitioner company had finance on the truck under hire purchase agreement. The truck is lying in open and it is our experience that when any vehicle is kept in police custody, it is not properly protected and looked after with the result that by the time a final order for its delivery is passed the same is completely damaged and all important parts are found missing. The finance company has interest to recover the sum from the sale of the truck, though, under the orders of the appropriate Court, but definitely it has interest to see that the truck is properly looked after and protected from being damaged. The argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor can be answered by observing that whenever any order for forfeiture of the said truck is passed, the concerned Court can direct the petitioner company to produce/ return the said truck and as such, it cannot be an impediment in passing appropriate order for the interim custody of the truck. 5. The argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor can be answered by observing that whenever any order for forfeiture of the said truck is passed, the concerned Court can direct the petitioner company to produce/ return the said truck and as such, it cannot be an impediment in passing appropriate order for the interim custody of the truck. 5. It is also true that this Court is normally very slow in interfering in such matters relating to interim custody of the vehicle, but taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, specially the fact that a proper protection and look after of the said truck is necessary, I think it proper that the said truck be given in the interim custody of the petitioner company on appropriate terms and conditions. 6. Consequently, I allow this petition, the impugned orders of the Courts below are set aside. The case is sent back to the Court of concerned Magistrate with a direction that it will pass an appropriate order for the interim custody of the truck in favour of the petitioner company on such terms and conditions which may be specified and imposed by it. The petitioner Company should approach to the said Court accordingly. 7. The petition is disposed of as indicated above. 8. A copy of this order be sent to the Courts below and if the record has been received, the same be also sent back immediately.Petition allowed. *******