JUDGMENT Hon’ble Surendra Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. 2. The revisionist Mohd. Aasif has filed this revision against the order dated 19.12.2011 passed by the Special Judge (D.A.A.), Court No. 4, Firozabad in Criminal Misc. Case No. 232 of 2011, Mohd. Aasif v. State of U.P., Crime No. 208 of 2011, under Sections 399 and 402 I.P.C., Police Station Nasirpur, District Firozabad, by which the release application of the revisionist has been rejected on the ground that if the vehicle is released, it may be used in criminal activities. 3. The revisionist Mohd. Aasif moved a release application for release of his Scorpio Car bearing Registration No. HR-37B-3344, claiming himself to be the registered owner thereof, saying that the accused persons Irfan and Sahabuddin had hired the aforesaid Scorpio Car from him on 12.11.2011 for going to Sikandra Rao and then in a marriage. The revisionist on believing them, entrusted his vehicle to them but the accused persons did not return his vehicle and the said vehicle was seized by the police on 15.11.2011 in Crime No. 208 of 2011, under Sections 399 and 402 I.P.C., Police Station Nasirpur, District Firozabad, on the ground that the said vehicle was being used by the accused persons Ikrar, Iqbal and ten others, when the police asked to stop the said vehicle, they made fire with intention to kill them. The named accused persons could not show the papers of the Car and the police thought it to be stolen and then challaned the accused persons sitting in the said vehicle. When the accused persons did not return his Car, the revisionist moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanshi Ram Nagar on 17.11.2011 and by order of the Court dated 2.12.2011, the F.I.R. at Crime No. 629 of 2011, under Sections 403, 406 I.P.C., was lodged on 21.12.2011. 4. The main submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is the registered owner of the said vehicle and the accused persons had taken his Car on hire when the said Car was seized by the police in the aforesaid crime. 4. The main submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is the registered owner of the said vehicle and the accused persons had taken his Car on hire when the said Car was seized by the police in the aforesaid crime. The learned trial Court rejected the application of the revisionist just on the ground that the said vehicle was not taken from the possession of the revisionist but was found by the police while it was being used by the accused persons in the aforesaid crime. 5. The next submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist had produced the relevant documents before the learned Special Judge to substantiate his ownership. There is no dispute regarding ownership but on account of pendency of criminal case, he has been refused release. 6. I have gone through the record as well as the impugned order. The Apex Court, in the case of Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujrat, 2003 (46) ACC 223, has clearly held that the powers under Section 457 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes : (i) Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused,(ii) Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody, (iii) If the proper panchnama before handing over article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial, if necessary, (iv) This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles. The Apex Court has clearly held that appropriate orders should be passed immediately because keeping it at police station for a long period would only result in decay of the article. The Court should ensure that the article will be produced if and when required by taking bond, guarantee or security. Similar view has been followed in a number of decisions of this Court as well. Mohd. Shamim Khan v. State of U.P., 2004 ACC (48) 605. The Court should ensure that the article will be produced if and when required by taking bond, guarantee or security. Similar view has been followed in a number of decisions of this Court as well. Mohd. Shamim Khan v. State of U.P., 2004 ACC (48) 605. In the case of Tulsi Rajak v. State of Jharkhand, 2004 Cri LJ 2450, it was held that truck lying in the police station for more than one year resulted in heavy loss of the petitioner and in the circumstances, the High Court permitted the release of the vehicle. In Gurnam Singh and another v. State of Uttaranchal, 2003 (47) ACC 1086, it was held that what so ever the situation be, there is no use to keep the seized vehicle at the police station or Court campus for a long period, the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time. 7. In the instant case, the Court below has committed a gross error in rejecting the release application, even though relevant documents regarding ownership were produced before it. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, I come to the conclusion that the order of the Court below cannot be left to stand. No good reason has been assigned for refusing the prayer for release of the said vehicle. Accordingly, the order dated 19.12.2011 passed by the Special Judge (D.A.A.), Court No. 4, Firozabad is quashed. The Court concerned is directed to release the vehicle No. HR-37B-3344 in favour of the revisionist within a period of three weeks from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before him after taking adequate guarantee/ security of the said vehicle from the revisionist and also an undertaking that the vehicle will not be disposed of during pendency of the criminal proceedings. For the reasons discussed above, this revision is disposed of. ——————