JUDGMENT 1. - Notice was given to learned Public Prosecutor who has accepted the same. 2. Heard. 3. This petition is being disposed off at the admission stage. 4. The petitioner is the registered owner of tractor No. RJ 13/1 R-1664, which was seized by the SHO Police Station, Rawatsar in connection with FIR No. 204/94 for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. It is alleged that in the night of 3.8.94 the accused persons after boarding on the said tractor had gone to the field to the complainant and inflicted injuries resulting in the death of Lal Chand. The petitioner's application filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for releasing the said tractor on supurdaginama to him has been rejected by the learned Civil Judge J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, Nohar by his order dated 22.8.94 on the sole ground that the said tractor is material evidence, which will be required during the trial of the case before the Sessions Court. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to support the impugned Order. 6. The tractor is stated to be lying in the custody of SHO Rawatsar in an open place and chances of its being damaged due to its exposure to natural effects namely sun and rain etc is imminent. It will rather diminish the value of the tractor and also deprive the petitioner of his regular income, thus, will add to national loss. 7. In the Diwan Singh v.State of Rajasthan, 1987 (2) RLR 798 , it has been held that it is a matter of common experience that whenever a vehicle is seized and kept at Police Station, its condition deteriorates day by day and a day comes when it becomes a scrap even before the trial of the case in concluded. It has been further held that in such circumstances it not only becomes individial loss but is also a national loss, because if the vehicle is on its wheels then it is used for transporation and earns revenue to the State also and, therefore, so far as practicable, vehicle should not be permitted to be ruined in the Police Station. 8. The Police does not require the tractor for any investigation purposes. 8. The Police does not require the tractor for any investigation purposes. It appears that learned magistrate has conveniently ignored provisions of Section 457 Cr.P.C. and has also not followed the guidelines given by this Court in Diwan Singh's case and numerous other cases wherein it has been reiterated that the vehicle seized by the police in criminal cases should be promptly released on Superdginama to the person entitled for it. 9. In the instant case learned magistrate has not applied her mind and just passed a mechanical order, which is petently unjust incorrect and inappropriate and the same can not be sustained. 10. Accordingly this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.8.94 is hereby quashed and it is ordered that the said tractor be given on Superdginama to the petitioner on his furnishing Superdginama for Rs. 1,50,000/- with the stipulation that he shall produce the said tractor before the trial court as and when ordered and that he shall not transfer, sale or alienate the same without the prior permission of the Court.Petition allowed. *******