Judgment :- 1. This Revision is filed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai in Cr.M.P. No.804 of 2013 dated 30.01.2013 declining to return the vehicle involved in the Crime on the ground that since Confiscation proceedings have been taken, the vehicle cannot be returned to the owner of the vehicle. 2. The Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle namely TATA ACE 22100 MMWB and according to the Petitioner, the vehicle was forcibly taken by the Second Respondent-Police from his house. Later he came to know that the said vehicle is said to have been involved in the case in Crime No.14 of 2013 for the alleged offence under Section 4(1) (aa) r/w 4(1-A) Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act for carrying 110 litres of illicit liquor in the said vehicle. The Petitioner is arrayed as Accused in this case and he filed a Petition under Section 457 r/w 451, Cr.P.C. seeking for interim custody of the vehicle on the ground that it is kept in open space exposed to sun and rain and the condition of the vehicle will be deteriorated. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the objections on the Respondent’s side raised, dismissed the said Petition holding that it was not feasible to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the Petitioner as Confiscation proceedings was in progress. The said order was challenged in the present Criminal Revision case. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate failed to properly consider the scope of the powers conferred under Sections 457 r/w 451 Cr.P.C. and that on an erroneous impression that no interim custody of the vehicle can be granted to anybody claiming to be the owner or the person entitled to the custody thereof, if proceedings for confiscation of the said vehicle under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 is under contemplation. Therefore, he would contend that the order is liable to be set aside and the relief sought for by the Revision Petitioner should be granted. 4. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner relied on the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Cri.O.P. No. 5278 of 2007 dated 09.07.2010 in Sundaram Finance Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. 4. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner relied on the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Cri.O.P. No. 5278 of 2007 dated 09.07.2010 in Sundaram Finance Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Inspector of Police, Kaveripattinam Police Station, Krishnagiri Taluk and another, 2011 (1) MWN (Cr.) 437. The learned Counsel also drew the attention of this Court to yet another order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Sakthidevi v. State by the Inspector of Police, Thitachery Police Station, Nagapattinam District, Crl.R.C. No.501 of 2011. 5. In the aforesaid decisions, the learned Single Judge after referring to the scope of the provision of Sections 451 & 457, Cr.P.C. and a number of judgments of this Court including the case in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003 (1) CTC 175 (SC) : AIR 2003 SCC 638, observed in clear terms that the possibility of confiscation of the vehicle under Section 14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act or even the fact that the proceedings for confiscation under the said provision has been initiated and is pending will not be the sole ground on which the Court can exercise the discretion under Section 451 or 457, Cr.P.C. against the person claiming to be the owner or otherwise entitled to the custody of the vehicle. It has also been held that entrusting the interim custody of the vehicle to the person shall not in any way come in the way of the Government or the Prohibition Officer passing an order of confiscation; that the interim custody granted by the Court would be construed only as the custody of the Court and the person to whom interim custody is granted shall hold it on behalf of the Court and that while granting such interim custody, conditions can be imposed to the effect that the person seeking interim custody should give an undertaking to handover the vehicle to the Collector or Prohibition Officer passing Confiscation order if required to do so. 6. 6. Relying on the aforesaid decision, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that though the proceedings for confiscation are said to have been initiated since the vehicle has been exposed to sun and rain over a considerable period under that circumstances, the discretion of the Court should have been exercised in favour of the Petitioner. 7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) reiterated the contention that was raised before the Court below that the Petitioner is not entitled to seek interim custody of the vehicle since Confiscation proceedings have been initiated. 8. In the light of decisions state supra, there is no bar for granting interim custody of the vehicle which is sought to be confiscated pending conclusion of the Confiscating proceedings. However, while exercising the discretion in favour of a person claiming to be the owner or otherwise is entitled to the property the Court should also take into consideration the very fact that the proceedings for confiscation is also on its way and that while avoiding the waste of the property by allowing it to lie idle by entrusting the custody of the vehicle to the Petitioner, care should also be taken to incorporate the condition requiring an undertaking by the Petitioner to produce the vehicle into the Court as and when required by the Court or to produce the same before the Collector or before the Prohibition Officer in connection with the Confiscation order proposed to be passed. 9. In the said view of the matter, it is of no use to keep the seized vehicles in the Magistrate Courts for a long period and it is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond as well as security for return of the said vehicles if required at any point of time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the interim custody of the vehicle can be given to the Petitioner on certain conditions in order to safeguard the production of the vehicle as and when required by the Court. 10. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai in Cr.M.P. No.804 of 2013 dated 30.01.2013 is set aside and the Revision stands allowed. The interim custody of the vehicle namely TATA ACE 2100 MMWB bearing Registration No.TN-49-AW-1641 which was seized by the Respondent/Police in Cr. 10. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai in Cr.M.P. No.804 of 2013 dated 30.01.2013 is set aside and the Revision stands allowed. The interim custody of the vehicle namely TATA ACE 2100 MMWB bearing Registration No.TN-49-AW-1641 which was seized by the Respondent/Police in Cr. No.14 of 2013 on the file of the Prohibition and Enforcement Wing, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District is directed to be given to the Petitioner on the following conditions: (i) The Petitioner shall produce proof of ownership of the vehicle. (ii) The Petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai. (iii) The Petitioner shall surrender the R.C.Book and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai is at liberty to return the R.C. Book for renewal of the registration or for insuring the vehicle. The R.C. Book can be obtained from the Court by filing a Petition and after the accomplishment of the purpose, the same should be returned to the Court; and (iv) The Petitioner shall also file an Affidavit of undertaking to the effect that-- (a) he will not alienate the vehicle without obtaining an order from the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai; (b) he will produce the said vehicle before the Court as and when summoned to produce the same; and (c) no major alteration excepting the necessary repairs to make the vehicle road worthy shall be made. (v) The Petitioner shall also give an undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required by the District Collector/Prohibition Officer in charge of the District or Officer authorized in that behalf by the Government.