Judgment :- Admit. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) takes notice. By consent on either side, the Criminal Revision Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner claiming to be the registered owner of the vehicle, namely, Toyota Qualis, bearing Registration No.TN-10-E-2346, filed a petition under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the vehicle, which was seized in connection with the Cr.No.594 of 2008 on the file of the respondent herein, who registered a case for the alleged offence under Sections 341 I.P.C. r/w 2 and 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property Destruction Act. The petition under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ponneri, by order, dated 27. 2008. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner has come forward with this revision petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate ought not to have dismissed the petition filed under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. simply on the ground that the case is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate failed to see that if the vehicle is kept in the open space exposed to sun, rain and air, it will affect its utility and its value will be diminished and that the petitioner will be put to hardship and financial loss. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in similar matters, the Honble Supreme Court has laid down some guidelines for the return of the vehicle, but the learned Judicial Magistrate has not followed the same. 7. On the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent, who was heard, fairly submitted that since the utility and value of the vehicle will be affected and if this Court deems fit to order return of the vehicle by following the Honble Supreme Courts guidelines, the vehicle may be ordered to be returned to the petitioner by imposing stringent conditions. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 9. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 9. At the outset, it is to be pointed out that the reason assigned by the learned Judicial Magistrate for dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner seeking the return of the vehicle cannot be sustained. Since the vehicle has been produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, who is empowered to pass orders under Section 451 Cr.P.C., ought to have allowed the petition, even though the case is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. 10. At this juncture, it will be useful to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in 2003 SCC Cri 1842. In the said decision, in paragraphs 17 and 18, it has been observed as follows:- "17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such 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 applications for return of such vehicles. 18. In case whether the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a 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 the 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 the 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. 11. A reading of the above said passages show that if the vehicle is kept in the police station, it will not be used by anybody and the utility of the vehicle will be affected and its value will be diminished. 11. A reading of the above said passages show that if the vehicle is kept in the police station, it will not be used by anybody and the utility of the vehicle will be affected and its value will be diminished. The Court below before returning the vehicle in question shall strictly follow the procedure laid down in the above decision of the Apex Court. 12. In the light of the above observation made by the Apex Court, this Court is of the considered view that the vehicle of the petitioner, namely, Toyota Qualis bearing Registration No.TN-10-E-2346 can be returned to the petitioner after imposing sufficient safeguards and conditions. Therefore, the respondent is directed to return the vehicle, namely, Toyota Qualis bearing Registration No.TN-10-E-2346, to the petitioner as interim custody on the petitioner complying with the following conditions : a) the petitioner shall prove his ownership of the said vehicle by producing the R.C. Book and other relevant records ; b) the petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle in any manner; c) the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) with two sureties before the Court concerned; and d) the petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will not use the vehicle for any illegal activities in future, and e) the petitioner shall also produce the vehicle as and when required by the respondent police. Subject to the above conditions and directions, the revision petition is allowed setting aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate.