JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ram Autar Singh, J.—This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27.8.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Agra in Criminal Case No. 34/08 (Smt. Seema Devi v. State of U.P.) arising out of Crime No. 40/07 of P.S. Etmaddaula, District Agra, wherein application moved by the revisionist Smt. Seema Devi Chaudhari under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for release of Bolero Vehicle No. HR-37A/7332 has been dismissed. 2. I have heard Shri Rameshwar Prasad holding brief of Shri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. on this revision and perused the record. 3. It appears from the record that a case under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act was registered at Crime No. 40/07 at P.S. Etmaddaula, District Agra on 25.1.2007 at 2.15 P.M. with this allegation that on the basis of information furnished by one informer, S.I., Shri Narain Tripathi, Incharge S.O.G., D.I.G. Range, Agra alongwith police force raided the house of the revisionist at 11.30 A.M. where one Bolero Jeep being No. HR-37A/7332 was found lying in front of the house of the revisionist and the husband of the revisionist was sitting on the driver seat. The police party on the basis of suspicion arrested the husband of the revisionist and conducted search of above Bolero Jeep, in which 43 small packets of Charas from the last seat of above Jeep were recovered. The police then prepared a recovery memo and brought accused alongwith recovered Charas to police station where above case was registered against Raj Singh, the husband of the revisionist. The revisionist then moved an application before Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Agra, under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for release of above Bolero vehicle claiming herself to be registered owner of the said vehicle. She also alleged in her application that she was not involved in transportation of any narcotic drugs nor she was made co-accused in the said case and her jeep was handed over to U.P. Power Corporation on hire under an agreement at the rate of Rs. 9950/- per month, but she could not allege as to how the said vehicle was taken into possession of accused Raj Singh and she was not having any knowledge of alleged offence. 4. 9950/- per month, but she could not allege as to how the said vehicle was taken into possession of accused Raj Singh and she was not having any knowledge of alleged offence. 4. It has been found that the first application was moved by the revisionist on 3.2.2007 in the said Court but the same was dismissed on 17.4.2007, against which she filed Criminal Revision No. 1199 of 2007 in this Court but the same was also dismissed as withdrawn on 29.7.2008. The revisionist then moved another application in the Court below, which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.8.2008, aggrieved by which, the revisionist filed this revision. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the trial Court has passed the impugned order without considering the facts and circumstances of the case as the vehicle has never been involved in the offence and prosecution has failed to collect any evidence that the present revisionist is also involved in the commission of alleged offence. 6. It is further contended that the Apex Court has held that the vehicle lying at police station should be released forthwith, because due to bad weather and atmosphere the condition of vehicle will be deteriorated. The alleged vehicle has been taken over by UPPCL department on hire in the year 2006 and the husband of the revisionist was employed as constable in Railway Protection Force and on the alleged date of occurrence he was performing his night duty and when in the morning he came to his house, the police arrested him on the suspicion and thus the entire case was based on presumption, suspicion and preparation of a false recovery memo. It might be true that something was recovered from the Jeep but the police did not comply with the provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of N.D.P.S. Act before search of the Jeep. The revisionist had also deputed a driver on the aforesaid jeep. It appears that somebody left the aforesaid article in the jeep, made a complaint to the police officers and falsely implicated her husband. The vehicle in question was purchased by the revisionist by taking a loan and due to non release of the vehicle the revisionist could not make payment of installments. 7. It appears that somebody left the aforesaid article in the jeep, made a complaint to the police officers and falsely implicated her husband. The vehicle in question was purchased by the revisionist by taking a loan and due to non release of the vehicle the revisionist could not make payment of installments. 7. The learned counsel for the revisionist has relied on decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003 (46) ACC 223 SC, wherein the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court has made certain observations with regard to release of vehicle under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14 which are quoted below: “6. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purpose, namely:- 1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; 2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; 3. If the proper panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and 4. This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with articles. 7. The question of proper custody of the seized article is raised in number of matters. In Smt. Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore and another, 1977 (14) ACC 220 (SC), this Court dealt with a case where the seized articles were not available for being returned to the complainant. In that case, the recovered ornaments were kept in a trunk in the police station and later it was found missing, the question was with regard to payment of those articles. In that context, the Court observed as under : “4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police, it ought not be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police, it ought not be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The High Court and the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing that one of the essential requirements of the Code is that the articles concerned must be produced before the Court or should be in its custody. The object of the Code seems to be that any property which is in the control of the Court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the Court and a just and proper order should be passed by the Court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the Court and has to take orders from it at every stage of any inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance." The Court further observed that where the property is stolen, lost or destroyed and there is no prima facie defence made out that the State or its officers had taken due care and caution to protect the property, the Magistrate may, in an appropriate case, where the ends of justice so require, order payment of the value of the property. To avoid such a situation, in our view, powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised promptly and at the earliest. Valuable Articles and Currency Notes. 8. To avoid such a situation, in our view, powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised promptly and at the earliest. Valuable Articles and Currency Notes. 8. With regard to valuable articles, such as, golden or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones, it is submitted that it is of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over. In our view, this submission requires to be accepted. In such cases, Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 Cr.P.C. at the earliest. 9. For this purpose, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized articles be handed over to the complainant after:- (1) preparing detailed proper panchnama of such articles; (2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articles would be produced if required at the time of trial; and (3) after taking proper security. 10. For this purpose, the Court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The bond and security should be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. The Court should see that photographs of such articles are attested or countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over. Still, however, it would be the function of the Court under Section 451 Cr.P.C. to impose any other appropriate condition. 11. In case, where such articles are not handed over either to the complainant or to the person from whom such articles are seized or to its claimant, then the Court may direct that such articles be kept in bank lockers. Similarly, if articles are required to be kept in police custody, it would be open to the SHO after preparing proper panchnama to keep such articles in a bank locker. In any case, such articles should be produced before the Magistrate within a week of their seizure. If required, the Court may direct that such articles be handed over back to the investigating officer for further investigation and identification. However, in no set of circumstances, the investigating officer should keep such articles in custody for longer period for the purpose of investigation and identification. For currency notes, similar procedure can be followed. If required, the Court may direct that such articles be handed over back to the investigating officer for further investigation and identification. However, in no set of circumstances, the investigating officer should keep such articles in custody for longer period for the purpose of investigation and identification. For currency notes, similar procedure can be followed. Vehicles 12. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrate who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to its owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time. 14. 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 applications for return such vehicles." 8. In the present case, the ownership of the vehicle in question is not disputed as learned A.G.A. for the respondent has not filed any counter-affidavit or written objection to show that the revisionist is not the owner of Bolero Vehicle No. HR-37A/7332. The revisionist has filed photo copies of the documents alongwith her affidavit to establish that she is registered owner of the above vehicle in question as she has purchased this vehicle from Mahindra & Mahindra Company and she has also been financed by Mahindra & Mahindra Financial service Limited in order to purchase the said vehicle and she has been making payment of installments from time to time to Mahindra & Mahindra Financial service Limited, but due to seizure of her vehicle she has not been able to pay due installments on account of non earning of any income from the said vehicle. 9. 9. The revisionist has filed photo copy of a letter dated 26.9.2006 of Superintendent of Police (Enforcement), U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Shakti Bhawan, Lucknow addressed to M/s New Chaudhary Travelers, 61, W/A.B., Nagla Devojeet Yamuna Bridge, Agra in order to show that she has already handed over her above vehicle to the officer of U.P. Power Corporation for a particular period at the rate of Rs. 9950/- per month as fare. Moreover, the revisionist has not been made accused in this case nor any charge-sheet has been submitted against her and all documents relating to above facts have been filed alongwith affidavit. 10. It has been found from the record that vehicle in question is lying at police station for the last three and half years due to which the owner of the vehicle has been suffering financial loss because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation. Keeping the said vehicle at police station for a long period cannot be said to be useful as the Court or police will not require the same during the intervening period and such vehicle should have been restored to the original owner at the earliest possible in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case. 11. It has been observed by Hon’ble Apex Court in above case that the object of the Code seems to be that any property, which is in the control of the Court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the Court and a just and proper order should be passed by the Court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the Court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. Thus the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has been taken cognizance. 12. The number of vehicles are kept unattended at police station, due to which the vehicles get junk day by day. Thus the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has been taken cognizance. 12. The number of vehicles are kept unattended at police station, due to which the vehicles get junk day by day. In view of this fact appropriate directions should be issued by the Magistrate, who are dealing with such matters to hand over such vehicles to its owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time. 13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case the learned Court below has not adhered to above directions issued by Hon’ble Apex Court. No such facts and circumstance has been brought on record on behalf of the respondent that in case of release of above vehicle in question the revisionist may use her vehicle in transportation of narcotic drugs because she has filed a document to show that she has given her vehicle to U.P. Power Corporation Limited on fare under an agreement and thus it cannot be said that she would use her vehicle in contravention of provisions of law in case the vehicle is released in her favour. Moreover the Court may require the revisionist to furnish personal bond and sureties and also impose reasonable conditions in this regard. 14. Under these circumstances, the Court below has not exercised its jurisdiction vested under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. This Court in Virendra Pal Singh v. State of U.P., 2008 (60) ACC 483, has also observed that the criminal Courts have jurisdiction under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. to pass appropriate order with regard to the custody and disposal of the property pending trial. The vehicle loaded with solvent standing in open place at police station premises for the last six years will be junked with passage of time and thus this Court directed the Magistrate to release the vehicle in favour of the revisionist on his furnishing appropriate bond with sureties and guarantee for production of vehicle required by the Court at any point of time. 15. From perusal of record of this case it has been found that the revisionist is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. 15. From perusal of record of this case it has been found that the revisionist is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. It has not been established that the revisionist was having any knowledge or consent for transportation of narcotic drugs in her vehicle. The revisionist has been facing financial crisis due to non-release of her vehicle as she has been failing to deposit the due installments of finance company and moreover the condition of the vehicle is deteriorating due to its lying at open place of police station. 16. In view of the foregoing discussions, this revision is liable to be allowed and the vehicle in question deserves to be released in favour of the revisionist. Consequently, this revision is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 27.8.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Agra is set aside. The Court below is directed to release the seized Bolero Vehicle No. HR-37A/7332 in favour of the revisionist on her furnishing an appropriate bond with sureties and guarantee of production of vehicle, if required by the Court at any point of time. The Court below may also impose certain reasonable conditions in this regard. —————