JUDGMENT : P.K. Patra, J. - In this revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of. Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner Sebatilata Barik has prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 4.8.1999 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh in Criminal Misc. Case No. 11 of 1999, rejecting her prayer u/s 457, Cr.P.C. for release of the seized vehicle. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State were heard at length. 3. The petitioner is the registered owner of the truck bearing registration number OR-05C-3675 having National route permit. On 11.5.1999 the truck loaded with coal had been taken to Nagpur in the State of Maharashtra. On 23.5.1999 the brother-in-law of the petitioner got information that the truck had been parked near Malikeswar Temple under Govindpur Outpost in the district of Dhenkanal and that the driver and helper of the truck were not there. The brother-in-law of the petitioner lodged S.D.E.No. 455 on 24.5.1999 at the Govindpur Outpost and after inquiry the said truck was released in favour of the petitioner which was reflected in S.D.E. No. 457 dated 24.5.1999. 4. On 28.5.1999 some police officers of Nagpur accompanied by the local police officer of Govindapur seized the truck alleging that 1 80 bags of 'Dal' worth Rs. 2,70,090.00 entrusted to the driver of the vehicle had not been delivered at the destination at Naharpara in Orissa and a case had been registered at Nagpur, u/s 406/34, IPC on the report of the dealer who had transported the goods in that truck. The truck was then kept in the custody of the local police awaiting order of the concerned Court at Nagpur to take the vehicle to Nagpur. 5. The petitioner filed an application u/s 457, Cr.P.C. for release of the seized truck but the said application was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on 4.8.1999 holding that he had no jurisdiction to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. 6. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned SD.J.M. was competent to exercise jurisdiction u/s 457, Cr.P.C, but he failed to exercise that power. 6. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned SD.J.M. was competent to exercise jurisdiction u/s 457, Cr.P.C, but he failed to exercise that power. Further, it was contended that the petitioner was in no way connected with the commission of the crime as alleged and that she had never directed the driver to involve the truck in any illegal act and that if at all any crime was committed by the driver, the truck will not be liable for confiscation and that the condition of the truck which has been kept in an open space subject to vagaries of nature is fast deteriorating and unless the truck is released in the zima of the petitioner that will be completely damaged. On the above grounds the learned counsel for the petitioner urged for release of the vehicle in question in interim zima of the petitioner. 7. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions reported in (1998) 15 OCR 109 (Abhimanyu Sahoo v. State of Orissa) and (1998) 14 OCR 583 . In the first case it has been held that where the condition of the seized article is likely to deteriorate the same may be released in favour of the person entitled to its possession on furnishing adequate property security with some conditions, violation of which would amount to contempt of Court. Where question of identification of the seized materials is involved, ordinarily it would not be proper to direct release of such vehicle and also where there is possibility of confiscation, the Court is to consider whether release would be in the interest of justice or not. In the second case it has been held that when the seized vehicle was lying exposed to sun and rain, the application u/s 457, Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle in the custody of the registered owner was permissible on furnishing an indemnity bond with some conditions. 8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the decisions referred to above, it would be expedient to release the seized truck in the interim custody of the petitioner who is stated to be the registered owner thereof. Hence it is ordered that the seized truck OR-05C-3675 be released in favour of petitioner Smt. Sebatilata Barik on her production of documents viz., RC. Hence it is ordered that the seized truck OR-05C-3675 be released in favour of petitioner Smt. Sebatilata Barik on her production of documents viz., RC. Book, etc., in support of her ownership of the seized vehicle and on her furnishing property security for Rs. 5 lakhs (Five lakhs) to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Athgarh with further conditions that she shall not use the vehicle for any illegal purpose or in any manner which is likely to reduce its value and will keep the vehicle in good running condition and to produce the same as and when required by the Court. The Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed