JUDGMENT (1) This revision has been filed challenging the order in Crl.M.P.No. 780 of 2009 in Crime No. 124 of 2009 of Konijerla Police Station, Khammam District, dated 28-10-2009, passed by the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, whereby and where under, the learned Magistrate allowed the petition filed by the petitioner for return of the lorry bearing No. OR 07 L 5066 along with the load, subject to condition that the interim custody of the property shall be given to the petitioner on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- with one surety and that he shall give an undertaking not to dispose of or alienate the said property and shall produce the same as and when required by the Court and shall maintain the case property in good condition and shall not change its design. (2) The case of the petitioner is that its driver, by name, Hair Shankar Singh, lodged a report to the police on 7-10-2009 and a case in Crime No. 124 of 2009 was registered by the Police, Konijerla Police Station, Khammam District. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: The petition is the owner of the lorry bearing No. OR 07 L 5066. On 5-10-2009 at about 4.40 p.m. while its driver, Hair Shankar Singh, was carrying iron construction material of M/s. Hindu Projects Ltd., Hyderabad to Rurkela in Orissa, and on 6-10-2009 at about 11.00 a.m. when he stopped the said vehicle sand went to have tea, the cleaner of the lorry, by name, Mr. Venkat Rao, had stolen away the truck along with the material. The driver of the lorry lodged a complaint to the Police, Konijerla Police Station, Khammam District. Basing on the same the police registered a case in Crime No. 124 of 2009. During the course of investigation, the police arrested the accused Y. Venkateswara Rao @ Venkat Rao and seized the lorry and the material on 9-10-2009. The further case of the prosecution is that the accused made a confessional statement that he had kept 100 pipes in two bundles near bushes to sell the same as scrap and the police seized those pipes under a cover of panchanama. The further case of the prosecution is that the accused made a confessional statement that he had kept 100 pipes in two bundles near bushes to sell the same as scrap and the police seized those pipes under a cover of panchanama. (3) The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner being owner of the lorry, a public carrier, had insurable interest in the material loaded in the said truck, which was indeed entrusted to them by M/s. Indu Projects Ltd., Mamidipalli village, Saroor Nagar Mandal, R.R. District at Hyderabad for delivering the same to the consignee M/s. Indu Projects Ltd., C/o. Tata Projects Ltd., Roorkela (RTPS), Orissa vide Orissa Way bill numbers AH 4696645 Andhra Pradesh way Bill No. 4621304 and delivery challan Nos. 2494, 2495 and 2496, for which the petitioner had raised its own consignment Note No. 0211148 dated 5-10-2009. The petitioner being the holder of title as a carrier had title to the goods and is entitled to claim the same as its true owner from the first respondent. It is also the case of the petitioner that the material is to be delivered within 3 to 5 days at the destination of the petitioner and if the material is not delivered, the petitioner would be put to serious loss. It is also his submission that the condition imposed to execute a bond for Rs. 7,00,000/- and to produce the same as and when required is too exorbitant and in view of the said order, the petitioner cannot deliver the consignment to the consignee. (4) The only point that arises for consideration is, whether the conditions imposed by the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, require modification in the circumstances of the case. As seen from the documents filed by the petitioner, there appears to be some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the material is to be delivered to the consignee. In the cases of theft, robbery and dacoity, identity of the property at the time of trial may assume importance. Whether a particular property has been seized from the possession of the accused or not is a fact that has to be proved at the time of trial. However, there may be vehicles or some other materials, or perishable goods, which may not be preserved for a longer time. Whether a particular property has been seized from the possession of the accused or not is a fact that has to be proved at the time of trial. However, there may be vehicles or some other materials, or perishable goods, which may not be preserved for a longer time. Where huge quantity is seized for example rice, oils or goods, which have to be necessarily delivered to the consignee as in this case, such property cannot be ordered to be kept as it is till the conclusion of trial. In such a situation, a part of the property should be preserved with all necessary documents, for the purpose of proving seizure, or recovery. Perishable goods may be released on adequate security or Bank guarantee. If no one claims perishable goods, the Magistrate is empowered to sell the same and the amount shall be delivered to the person, who will be found entitled. In this case, the material loaded in the lorry has to be delivered to the consignee and the documents filed by the petitioner show that the petitioner is the holder of title for the present. The entire material loaded in the lorry if detained, if not delivered to its destination, the petitioner may be put to irreparable loss. Therefore, in the circumstances, the impugned order is modified as follows: Except 100 pipes that have been seized at the instance of the accused, the remaining material and the lorry shall be given to the petitioner, on condition of his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) and on further condition of giving a Bank guarantee for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam. As far as the lorry is concerned, the petitioner shall not change the shape or colour of the lorry or alienate the same and he shall produce it as and when required. The petitioner shall also deposit the RC Book with the learned Magistrate, pending further orders or till disposal of the case. As far as the material is concerned, except 100 pipes seized, the petitioner is permitted to deliver the remaining material to its destination. The 100 pipes that have been seized from the possession of the petitioner/accused shall be preserved as cases property. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly disposed of.