S. R. VENKATESHA MURTHY, J. ( 1 ) GOVERNMENT pleader is directed to take notice for the respondent. He files objections. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the learned magistrate has not released the vehicle, when he made an application under Section 457 c f the cr. P. c. , which had met with an accident. The petitioner claims that the vehicle be released to him as it is a stage carriage which is required for operation of transporting passengers. The learned magistrate despite being told that the vehicle was not required for purpose of investigation, proceeded to pass the order dated 17-2-2000 whereunder he sought information on various aspects and disposed of the application for return of the vehicle. Hence this petition under Section 482 of the cr. P. c. ( 3 ) THE state has opposed the application on the ground that the vehicle in question was involved in an accident committing offences under Section 66 read with 192 (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, that the petitioner has not produced the permit and other documents for verification and that is why the learned magistrate has passed the impugned order. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Section 136 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') in support of his contention that the vehicle has to be returned within 24 hours of the inspection by the inspector of the motor vehicles. ( 5 ) SECTION 136 of the act reads as follows:"136. Inspection of vehicle involved in accident. When any accident occurs in which a motor vehicle is involved, any person authorised in this behalf by the state government may, on production if so required of his authority, inspect the vehicle and for that purpose may enter at any reasonable time any premises where the vehicle may be, and may remove the vehicle for examination: provided that the place to which the vehicle is removed shall be intimated to the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle shall be returned after completion of the formalities to the owner, driver or the person in charge of the vehicle within twenty-four hours". ( 6 ) THE object of law is to see that the motor vehicle is returned to the owner, driver or the person who is in charge of the vehicle, so that the vehicle can be put to use at the earliest opportunity. There may be instances where the vehicle is on hire-purchase and detention of the vehicle needlessly is bound to cause not only loss to the owner of the vehicle but it would also affect the movement of passengers or goods, as the case may be, for which the permits are granted. ( 7 ) A reading of Section 136 of the act would show that when once the authorised officer inspects the vehicle involved in the accident, the place to which the vehicle is removed should not only be intimated to the owner, but it should be returned after completion of the formalities either to the owner or driver or the person in charge of the vehicle within 24 hours. This mandate is applicable to whosoever takes charge of the vehicle or deemed to have the control over the disposal of the vehicle whether it be a police officer or the jurisdictional court. In the circumstances, the court when it seeks to exercise its power of directing the interim custody of the vehicle shall have to act very promptly so that the period of 24 hours, after the completion of the formality, stipulated is not violated. The learned magistrate by making the impugned Order, has actually deferred consideration of the application for return of the vehicle by asking for various particulars which were in the circumstances, needless for disposal of the application and has violated the mandate of Section 136 of the Motor Vehicles Act. ( 8 ) IF the petitioner is found to have operated the vehicle without permit or without driving licence or in violation of any other Provisions of the Act, it is a matter for the authorities to investigate and to charge- sheet the offenders for the offences found to have been committed and not to seek verification of the documents before considerations of the release of the vehicle. Especially when the registration certificate was allegedly produced before the magistrate, it was not necessary for the magistrate to verify the possession of or validity of the documents relating to the vehicle. Especially when the registration certificate was allegedly produced before the magistrate, it was not necessary for the magistrate to verify the possession of or validity of the documents relating to the vehicle. In any event, Section 136 obliges not only the police offer but also the magistrate if the vehicle is produced before him to direct return of the vehicle within the stipulated time under law. The learned magistrate shall release the vehicle forthwith on such terms and conditions as are permissible in law after taking necessary bonds from the petitioner for purposes of ensuring production of vehicle, in the event of need, during trial. --- *** --- .