ORDER 1. The petitioner (Owner of the Tractor bearing Registration No. TAP 7273) has focussed the present Criminal Revision Case before this Court as against the Order dated 06.09.2012 in Cr. M.P. No. 4734 of 2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sattur. 2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sattur, while passing Orders in Cr. M.P. No. 4734 of 2012 in Crime No. 284 of 2012, on the file of the Respondent Police Station, on 6.9.2012, has inter alia observed that the Tractor (bearing Registration No. TAP 7273) (in P.R.No. 270 of 2012) at the time of occurrence on 19.5.2012, has been carrying one Unit of sand without any permit and taking note of the investigation, which is pending and if the interim custody of the vehicle is handed over to the petitioner/Owner, then there is a possibility for the petitioner/Owner to sell the same (as opined by this Court) and because of this reason, the enquiry will get affected and resultantly, dismissed the Petition. 3. Aggrieved against the said Order of dismissal in Cr. M.P. No. 4734 of 2012, dated 6.9.2012, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sattur, the petitioner (Owner of the Vehicle), as an aggrieved person, has filed the present Criminal Revision Case before this Court. 4. According to the Learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner (Owner of the Tractor bearing Registration No. TAP 7273), as per complaint, is purported to have transported the Sand on 19.5.2012 and when the Sub Inspector of Police made a Vehicle check up, it has been found out that the Sand has been transported in the petitioner’s Vehicle without any permit and that the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sattur has erroneously assigned the reason for dismissing Cr. M.P. No. 4734 of 2012 (filed praying for interim custody of the Vehicle by the revision petitioner) and the said Order is liable to be set aside, in the interest of justice, since it suffers from infirmity and illegality in the eye of law. 5. Advancing his arguments, the Learned counsel for the petitioner (Owner of the Tractor) cites a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 , at page No. 284, wherein it is observed and laid down as follows: “The powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. 5. Advancing his arguments, the Learned counsel for the petitioner (Owner of the Tractor) cites a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 , at page No. 284, wherein it is observed and laid down as follows: “The powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, 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 the articles.” 6. It is to be borne in mind that Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure categorically enjoins a Court of law to pass appropriate Orders in regard to the proper custody of the Vehicle pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Also, the competent Court can pass Orders requiring the property to be sold or otherwise disposed of, after recording such evidence, as it thinks fit and necessary. Furthermore, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, the Trial Court is empowered to dispose of the same. 7. If the vehicle, viz., Tractor bearing Registration No. TAP 7273 belonging to the petitioner/Owner is left unused/unattended, then he will be the sufferer, in as much as the vehicle become junk day by day as opined by this Court. Also it is not safe for the Court or the Police to keep the Vehicle in safe custody. If proper panchnama before handing over possession of the Article is prepared, the same can be employed in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If need be, evidence can also be recorded mentioning the nature of the property in detail. Added further, the jurisdiction of the competent Magistrate Court to record evidence ought to be exercised promptly, so as to avoid any further chance of tampering with the Article/property. 8. If need be, evidence can also be recorded mentioning the nature of the property in detail. Added further, the jurisdiction of the competent Magistrate Court to record evidence ought to be exercised promptly, so as to avoid any further chance of tampering with the Article/property. 8. The object of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that where by the property, which is the subject matter of an offence, is seized the Police, then it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the Police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. 9. It is to be borne in mind that Section 451 read with Explanation categorically point out that it is not only as regards the property pertaining to an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of the offence that the Court is empowered to make an order for custody and disposal of property pending trial, but even in regard to the property produced before the Court, it is competent to pass such an order. 10. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to point out the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar JT 2000 (8) SC 54 , at page No. 55, wherein in paragraphs 2 and 3, it is observed and held as under: “2. We do not think it necessary to keep the vehicle in the compound of the Court indefinitely for a very long time till the final disposal of this case. It is more advisable to entrust it to the registered owner on behalf of the Court under certain conditions. We therefore, direct the Court in whose custody the vehicle is presently kept to release the same to the appellant on the following conditions: 1. He shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. 2. He must satisfy the Court that he is the registered owner of the vehicle. 3. He shall not allow his son Deepak Singh to use the vehicle until disposal of the prosecution case against him. He shall file an undertaking in Court to that effect. 4. He shall produce the vehicle either before the Court or before such other authorities as the Court may direct. 5. 3. He shall not allow his son Deepak Singh to use the vehicle until disposal of the prosecution case against him. He shall file an undertaking in Court to that effect. 4. He shall produce the vehicle either before the Court or before such other authorities as the Court may direct. 5. He will not transfer the vehicle to anybody else nor possession of the same be parted with until disposal of the case.” 3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.” 11. Also, this Court aptly points out yet another decision of Honourable Supreme Court Smt. Basava Kom Dyamogouda Patil v. State of Mysore and Another AIR 1977 SC 1749 , at page 1750, wherein it is laid down as follows: “A production before the Court does not mean physical custody or possession by the Court, but includes even control exercised by the Court by passing an order regarding the custody of the articles. Where the Magistrate, after having been informed that the articles have been produced before the Court directs the Sub-Inspector to keep them with him and valued by a goldsmith, the articles are undoubtedly produced before the Court and become custodia legis.” 12. As far as the present case is concerned, taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court opines that the petitioner can be directed to produce the Tractor bearing Registration No. TAP 7273 (involved in the occurrence) before the trial Court as well as before the Authorities concerned, whenever it is required for a bona fide purpose. No harm or prejudice will be caused to the Respondent/Police, if this Court passes an Order directing the trial Court to return the Tractor bearing Registration No. TAP 7273 as an interim custody to the revision petitioner, of course, after imposing the following conditions: (i) The petitioner (Owner) of the Tractor bearing Registration No. TAP 7273 shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sathur. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sathur. (ii) He is directed to produce his proof of ownership of the Vehicle, viz., Tractor bearing Registration No. TAP 7273; (iii) He is directed to file an affidavit of undertaking stating that during the pendency of the case before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sattur, he will not alienate, encumber or change the physical features of the Tractor in question or to sell the same to any third party; (iv) He is directed to produce the Vehicle viz., Tractor bearing Registration No. TAP 7273 (involved in the occurrence) on the first working day of every English Calendar month before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sattur until further Orders from this Court. (v) It is open to the trial Court, if need be, to prepare a Panchnama before handing over the possession of the vehicle viz., the Tractor bearing Registration No. TAP 7273 to the petitioner/Owner and if required an evidence can also be recorded describing the nature of property in detail. (vi) He is directed to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi along with Tractor bearing Registration No. TAP 7273 (on receipt of notice or summons as the case may be) whenever required. 13. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in the above terms. Revision allowed.