JUDGMENT The unsuccessful applicant, a registered owner of truck bearing Registration No. MP09K-5586 has directed this application u/s 482 CrPC against the order dated 13.7.98 and 5.8.98 respectively rendered by ACJM Sarangpur and ASJ Shajapur in Misc. Criminal Case No. 60/98 and Criminal Revision No. 102/98, thereby refusing interim custody of the aforesaid vehicle in favour of the applicant. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that at the time of the incident, on search, about 6000 kg. of powdered hump was found illegally transported in the said truck. Police Sarangpur seized the alleged powdered hump and the truck bearing Registration No. MP09K-5586 and registered an offence u/s 34A of Excise Act against the driver of the said truck. The applicant, who is a registered owner of the said truck, filed an application u/s 457 CrPC for grant of interim custody' of the truck in question during the pendency of the trial. The trial Magistrate, rejected the application. A revision filed against the order of the Magistrate was also dismissed by the impugned order of the ASJ, Shajapur. Aggrieved the applicant has filed this petition u/s 482 CrPC. Counsel for applicant submitted that it is not disputed that the applicant is the registered owner of the seized truck. As such, he is entitled to get the interim custody of the said truck in his favour. The learned counsel contended that if the seized truck is allowed to remain idle, there is every possibility that by the time when the matter is finally decided, the vehicle in question may be completely damaged or destroyed. The impugned orders of the Courts below, refusing to grant interim custody of the seized truck to the applicant who is the registered owner of the said truck, causing great hardship and the interference of this Court exercising powers u/s 482 CrPC for securing ends of justice is necessary. As against this, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State supported the impugned orders and submitted that the truck in question is seized in connection with a crime registered u/s 34A of the Excise Act for illegally transporting large quantity of powdered hump in contravention to the provisions of the said Act. The counsel also submitted that under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, the seized truck is liable to be confiscated. As such, no interference is necessary in the impugned orders. The counsel also submitted that under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, the seized truck is liable to be confiscated. As such, no interference is necessary in the impugned orders. I have considered rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the records of the Court below. From the copies of the Insurance Policy and the Registration certificate as also the fitness certificate of the said truck filed by the applicant in this Court, it is not disputed that the applicant is the registered owner of the truck in question. It is also not disputed that under the provisions of the Central Excise Act the truck may be confiscated in connection with the offence registered under the Excise Act. But in case of Paramjeet Singh v. State of M.P. [ 1999(1) MPWN 100 ] as also in case of Kanhaiyalal v. Govt. of India [ 1987 JLJ 586 ] this Court has held that the law is well settled on the point that merely because the vehicle is liable to be confiscated cannot be seized vehicle to the registered owner. This Court also held that the motor vehicle is meant for user and the owner should not be deprived of such user. It is also true that if the motor vehicle is not used for a longer time it is likely to rot or rust and while considering the question of interim custody, the Court should only take into consideration that the questioned vehicle when called upon by the Court for the purpose of evidence or in the event of confiscation order, the same would be produced for the aforesaid purpose. The application for interim custody normally should not be rejected unless there are grounds to believe that the seized vehicle is not going to be produced when required for the purpose of evidence by the person to whom the interim custody of such vehicle is given. The Court is competent to impose conditions on the applicant while passing the order of interim custody to secure or satisfy the aforesaid purpose. In this case there appears no reason to refuse interim custody of the truck in question to the applicant and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and miscarriage of justice, interference exercising powers u/s 482 CrPC is necessary. In the result, this petition filed by the applicant is allowed. In this case there appears no reason to refuse interim custody of the truck in question to the applicant and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and miscarriage of justice, interference exercising powers u/s 482 CrPC is necessary. In the result, this petition filed by the applicant is allowed. The impugned orders of the Courts below dated 13.7.98 and 5.9.98 refusing to grant interim custody of the· truck in question to the applicant are quashed. The trial Court is directed to order for interim custody of the seized truck bearing Reg. No. MP09K-5586 in favour of the applicant, registered owner of the said truck imposing such conditions as may be considered necessary to safeguard interest of the parties concerned. There shall be no order as to the cost.