JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner Finance Company challenging the order dated 22.8.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in C.R. No. 398/2012 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for permitting it to sell the tractors bearing Engine No. D-23625, S.N. 758666 and D-22801, S.N. 746608 was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tractors in question were financed by the petitioner company and were seized during the course of investigation of the F.I.R. No. 398/2012 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Barmer under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B and 467 I.P.C. The vehicles were directed to be handed over the petitioner on Supurdaginama. It was prayed on behalf of the Finance Company that it should be permitted to put the vehicles in question to auction because they were deteriorating as the same were lying idle for a long period of time. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court by the impugned order and hence the instant miscellaneous petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner Finance Company was having a lien over the vehicles in question as it had financed the same. He submits that the accused procured the vehicle by impersonation and forgery, and therefore, they have no right to claim the vehicle in question and it is the company who is put to undue loss because of fraudulent acts of the accused. He submits that considering this aspect, the Trial Court directed the tractors in question to be handed over to the petitioner company on Supardginama. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in General Insurance Council & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh being Writ Petition (c) No. 14 of 2008 decided on 19.4.2010 reported in (2010) 6 SCC 768 , learned counsel contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled in the said judgment that the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled in the said judgment that the insurer can be permitted to auction the vehicle and thereafter, an undertaking/guarantee can be furnished to the Court that the proceeds from the sale auction shall be subject to the final adjudication of the case by the Magistrate. Learned counsel thus prayed that the case of the Finance Company also stands on identical footing with that of the insurer and that the Finance Company should also be permitted to sell the vehicles. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel on the order passed by the learned Single Bench of Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu being Cri. O.P. No. 5278/2007 and 9744/2010 decided on 9.7.2010. 4. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the order impugned and the judgments cited. 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in General Insurance Council's case (supra), issued following direction with regard to seized vehicles:- "(A) xxx (B) xxx (C) Insurer would submit an undertaking/guarantee to remit the proceeds from the sale auction of the vehicle conducted by the Insurance Company in the event that the Magistrate finally adjudicates that the rightful ownership of the vehicle does not vest with the insurer. The Undertaking/guarantee would be furnished at the time of release of the vehicle, pursuant to the application for release of the recovered vehicle. Insistence on personal bonds may be dispensed with looking to the corporate structure of the insurer." 6. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there could not have been any reason for the learned Magistrate to have denied permission to the petitioner to sell the vehicles in question as keeping the vehicles in a redundant condition in the premises of the Finance Company would render them waste. On the other hand it the vehicles are put to auction then whatever cost is fetched out of the auction would be at the disposal of the Magistrate of award it to the person best entitled thereto. 7. Resultantly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. The order dated 22.8.2013 is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to auction the vehicles in question. An undertaking/guarantee shall be submitted on behalf of the petitioner that if the learned Magistrate finally adjudicated that the original ownership of the vehicles does not vest with the petitioner, then the auction money shall be deposited in the Court for the disposal thereof as per of discretion of the Trial Court.Petition allowed. *******