JUDGMENT Hon’ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—The applicant has come to this Court against refusal to return Tata Sumo in the custody of the applicant pendente lite seized by the police P.S. Narhi in offence under Sections 279, 427, 337, 338 Indian Penal Code. 2. What brought about rejection initially was that when the applicant applied for the release of vehicle before the Chief Judicial Magistrate it was neither found registered in the name of the applicant nor its insurance cover was filed. 3. That discrepancy was later on rectified in his subsequent application because the applicant produced registration certificate of the vehicle in his name showing to be the registered owner of the vehicle and the insurance cover note bearing No. 0104336 issued by United India Insurance Co. Ltd., which also stands in his name, the photostat copies of which are already on the file. 4. The hitch which prevented return of the vehicle at both the stages Magisterial and revising is that on the date of the accident, i.e. 15.1.2006 the applicant was not the registered owner of the vehicle and did not also hold any insurance policy in his name relating to the vehicle, and the registration has changed hands to get rid of the liabilities of accident. 5. Normally it is and it should be policy of the Courts to release vehicles used in the commission of crime because they are likely to go rusted by disuse, while the case remains pending unless there are specific reasons for its non-return and unless the vehicle is so interminably linked with the offence that its retention is necessary in establishing the guilt of the accused. 6. The view of the Supreme Court as will appear from the undernoted observations in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003 (46) A.C.C. 223, is that liberal approach has to be adopted in matters relating to the return of property : “In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of application for return of such vehicles. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of application for return of such vehicles. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If insurance company fails to take possession the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared. For articles such a seized liquor also, prompt action should be taken in disposing it of after preparing necessary panchanama. If sample is required to be taken, sample may be kept properly after sending it to the chemical analyser, if required. But it no case, large quantity of liquor should be stored at the police station. No purpose is served by such storing. Similarly for the narcotic drugs also, for its identification, procedure under Section 451, Cr. P. C. should be followed for recording evidence and disposal. Its identity could be on the basis of evidence recorded by the Magistrate. Samples also should be sent immediately to the chemical analyser so that subsequently, a contention may not be raised that the article which was seized was not the same. However, these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451, Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case for not more than fifteen days to one month. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451, Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case for not more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly.” 7. In the present case there is no such need or necessity for retaining the vehicle. 8. The confusion about the ownership need not cause any problem because the paper of ownership of the vehicle and that in whose name it was registered and insured with which company on date of incident has been now removed. 9. There seems thus no point in allowing the said Tata Sumo to remain lying at police station exposed to wind and weather for years to come pending the decision of this case. 10. The vehicle be, therefore, released in the custody of the applicant subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia, in regard to the same. 11. A copy of this order be sent to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Ballia for compliance. Order Accordingly. ———