JUDGMENT - A.S. BAGGA, J.:---Heard Mr. B.R. Warma, learned Counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions and Mr. K.S. Patil, learned A.P.P. for the respondents. 2. Two tankers were found abandoned by the side of a road. Each of the tanker contained a contraband i.e. rectified spirit. After investigation, two charge-sheets came to be filed. Each of the charge-sheet was against two persons. The accused No. 1 in each charge-sheet was the driver of the vehicle and the accused No. 2 in each charge-sheet was the owner of the vehicle. In both the cases, the accused No. 2, owner of the vehicle, was shown as absconding. 3. Subsequently, applications were moved by accused No. 2, owners of the vehicles who were shown as absconding accused persons, for custody of the tankers which were seized. The learned Magistrate, however, rejected the applications for custody of the vehicle. Against the order of rejection of custody of the tankers, both the owners of the tankers, filed revision applications which, however, came to be dismissed on the ground that order, refusing temporary custody of the vehicle, is an interlocutory order and hence, is not revisable. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners who are allegedly the owners of the tankers who are the absconding accused in charge-sheets which have been filed under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, have filed the above petitions. 4. As stated earlier, the petitioner in Cri.W.P. No. 466/2001, Hardayalsing s/o Harcharansing, is the accused No. 2 in charge-sheet filed in STCC No. 45/1998 (Crime No. 149/1997) and the petitioner in Cri.W.P. No. 467/2001, Gurdipsing s/o Samsharsing, is the accused No. 2 in charge-sheet filed in STCC No. 326/1998 (Crime No. 145/1997). 5. Under the provisions of section 451 of Cri.P.C a Magistrate is not to investigate and decide the question or title or ownership of the rival claimants to the property. Only the question of possession of the property, at the time the case started, has to be gone into and decided before passing an order of custody under this section. It cases of motor vehicles involved, it is the duty of a Magistrate to expeditiously decide who is the person, prima facie, entitled to possession of the vehicle, and hand over its possession to him, in view of the great loss sustained when the vehicle is kept unused for a long period. It cases of motor vehicles involved, it is the duty of a Magistrate to expeditiously decide who is the person, prima facie, entitled to possession of the vehicle, and hand over its possession to him, in view of the great loss sustained when the vehicle is kept unused for a long period. In arriving at such a decision, a Magistrate is required to consider provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. A person in whose name the vehicle is registered under the Motor Vehicles Act is, prima facie, entitled to its possession. Keeping a truck or a tanker idle causes heavy losses. It should be handed over to the person when there is no advantage to the police in keeping it idle. Order for security bond, from the person to whom temporary custody is given, is also permissible. 6. It is not that vehicles which are used for transportation of a contraband intoxicant or spirit are always to be confiscated. In the event of owner successfully showing that inspite of precautions having been taken, the property was used for transportation of a contraband without his knowledge, a Court may give the owner an option to pay fine as it deems fit in lieu of confiscation. In addition to above, provision contained in section 99 of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, provides that a Court may, after hearing the person, if any, claiming any right thereto and the evidence, if any, which he produces in support of his claim, order confiscation, or in the case of any article, other than an intoxicant, hemp, Mhowra flowers or molasses, give the owner an option to pay fine as the Court deems fit in lieu of confiscation. Thus, it would be seen that it is not always necessary to reject application for temporary custody of the vehicle to the original claimant. Whether or not property is to be handed over to the claimant during pendency of the trial would depend on many factors which are envisaged under section 451 of Cri.P.C. and Sections 98 99 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The important factor, on which applications are decided, is whether the claimant is prima facie entitled for the possession of the vehicle. In this regard, provisions of Motor Vehicles Act are required to be seen. The important factor, on which applications are decided, is whether the claimant is prima facie entitled for the possession of the vehicle. In this regard, provisions of Motor Vehicles Act are required to be seen. The fact as to in whose name the vehicles are registered with Regional Transport Authority, is required to be taken into consideration. In addition to this, a Magistrate has to take a note of the fact that it is not always that the property used for transportation of a contraband is to be confiscated and in lieu of confiscation, a Court may give the owner an option to pay fine, as it deems fit and finally, confiscation of the property is to be ordered, if the owner is not able to show that the offence is committed despite the owner being diligent i.e., in other words, the crime came to be committed without the knowledge of the owner and inspite of taking due care caution. 7. After having gone through the orders passed by the learned Magistrates, provisions of section 451 of Cri.P.C. sections 98 and 99 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, this Court is of the view that the order impugned in both the petitions deserve to be set aside and are, accordingly, hereby set aside. The petitioners are directed first to appear in the above criminal cases as accused before the trial Court and shall seek regular bail in the matter since they have been shown as absconding accused. Thereafter, the petitioners shall file appropriate applications for custody of the respective vehicles during pendency of the trial. The learned Magistrate shall decide the applications afresh by passing fresh orders, in the light of observations made herein, after hearing the petitioners as well as the State. 8. Both the petitions are allowed. 9. With above directions, Rule is made absolute. Petitions allowed. -----