JUDGMENT This petition u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for return of the Jeep bearing No. MP 07 B 0452 which was seized in a case registered at Crime No. 328/94, u/Ss. 420, 161, 392, 419 and 506-B IPC by Police Station Dehat Bhind, District Bhind. Facts of the case are that one Gabbar Singh was alleged to have committed these offences pretending himself to be the Town Inspector of Police having gone in the aforesaid Jeep which belongs to the petitioner. It is also evident that Gabbar Singh was a driver of the Jeep which was owned by the petitioner. At the time of occurrence, Gabbar Singh the driver is said to have committed the alleged offences and the Jeep was seized. Thereafter Gabbar Singh was arrested and is detained in jail and is facing the trial. Petitioner has moved an application for return of the Jeep u/S. 451 Cr.P.C. which was rejected by the trial Court. A revision was filed which was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge of Bhind by order dated 12th of May, 1995. Thereafter, petitioner has moved a petition u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. which was rejected by this Court by order dated 16.1.1995. In that order brother Tej Shankar, J. observed that in view of the case of Dharampal v. Ramshree, AIR 1993 SC 1361 , no petition u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. lies after the revision has been dismissed. Later on, the latest case of the Supreme Court was brought to the notice of this Court that even after the revision was dismissed by the Sessions Judge u/S. 399 Cr.P.C., a petition u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. lies. The case of Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa, 1995 (1) Crimes 306 , was examined and it was found that the earlier law has been changed by the Supreme Court and now it has been made permissible that petition u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. can be entertained and heard on merits in spite of the revision on the same facts has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge. As such, this petition was entertained and has been taken up on merits. It is not disputed that the petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid Jeep. It is also not disputed that accused Gabbar Singh was a driver of the vehicle. Gabbar Singh has misused this vehicle in commission of the alleged crime and the Jeep was seized later on. It is not disputed that the petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid Jeep. It is also not disputed that accused Gabbar Singh was a driver of the vehicle. Gabbar Singh has misused this vehicle in commission of the alleged crime and the Jeep was seized later on. The alleged crime committed by Gabbar Singh is his individual act. There is no case of conspiracy that the owner of the vehicle was also involved in the crime. Also there is no allegation that there was any abetment on the part of the petitioner in commission of the said crime. Further, the vehicle was simply misused in the alleged crime and was not used as a carrier or the same was required as a piece of evidence for effective disposal of the trial. Therefore, in these circumstances, the vehicle which is in the ownership of the petitioner and is lying in the Police Station for the last one year is to be released with the direction that whenever required by the trial Court shall be produced before the Court. This petition is accordingly allowed. It is directed that the aforesaid Jeep shall be released to the petitioner on his furnishing security to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand only) to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhind. After the jeep is released, the petitioner shall not dispose of the same or shall not alter the condition of the jeep in any way so that evidence required in the trial may be tampered or disappeared in any way. Petitioner shall produce this vehicle before the trial Court whenever it is required under the direction given by the Court.