JUDGMENT RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J. 1. Leave to amend to correct the name of the appellant. 2. The present appeal is filed by one Jitendrakumar Hemantlal Aswani praying that:- “7. (B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this Criminal Appeal by quashing and setting aside the Judgment and Order passed by learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Misc. Application No.101 of 2014 dated 5.8.2014 rejecting the application of the present appellant for releasing of Muddamal and further be pleased to handover custody of Muddamal truck bearing Regn.No.GJ-18-U-8233 in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 3. Learned Advocate Mr.Amirkhan Pathan for learned Advocate Mr.Ashish M.Dagli for the appellant invited attention of the Court to the facts of the case which are set out in para-3 of the appeal memo. The same is reproduced for the ready perusal:- “3.1 It is respectfully submitted that one Laxmansinh Pithasinh Chauhan was owing motor truck No.GJ-18-U-8233 and further the said person obtained hypothecation loan from Tata Motor Finance Co. on the said vehicle for which entry/endorsement was also made in the registration book. It is further submitted that thereafter the said vehicle was given on rent to one Haribhai Bijalbhai Marwadi and thereafter the said vehicle was also given on rent by Haribhai Baljabhai Marwadi to one other person. Thus it is submitted that Laxmansinh Pithabhai Chauhan was the real owner of the said vehicle. It is respectfully submitted that on 30.10.2009 at about 4.30 one offence came to be registered before Joravarnagar police station vide CR No.I-139 of 2009 under Sec.379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code wherein the motor truck No.GJ-8-U-8233 came to be seized by the police authorities. 3.2 It is submitted that the motor truck No.GJ-18-U-8233 was hypothecated with Tata Motor Finance Co. Ltd. and real owner i.e. Laxmansinh Chauhan was not able to clear the loan amount of the said vehicle and therefore the said vehicle came to be auctioned by Tata Motor Finance Co. Ltd. wherein the present appellant purchased the said vehicle from the auction bid. Further no objection was also taken from the real owner i.e. Laxmaisinh Chauhan i.e. present appellant before purchasing the said vehicle at a cost of Rs.1,30,000/- from the auction bid. Ltd. wherein the present appellant purchased the said vehicle from the auction bid. Further no objection was also taken from the real owner i.e. Laxmaisinh Chauhan i.e. present appellant before purchasing the said vehicle at a cost of Rs.1,30,000/- from the auction bid. 3.3 It is respectfully submitted that thereafter the present appellant preferred an application for releasing of Muddamal vehicle on 17.12.2011 which came to be rejected on the ground that the appellant has not produced any evidence on record to substantiate the fact that he is real owner of the vehicle. 3.4 It is submitted that therefore the present appellant carried out the required process under the law and therefore the present appellant obtained one on objection certificate from real owner i.e. Laxmaisinh Chauhan and further also obtained one power of attorney from the said person. It is submitted that since the present appellant has deposited amount of Rs.1,30,000/-by way of purchasing the said vehicle in auction bid hypothecation deed came to be cancelled and thereafter said vehicle came to be transferred in the name of present appellant for which one letter is also issued by Tata Motor Finance Co. Ltd. Copy of the same is annexed herewith and marked Annexure-B to this appeal. 3.5 It is respectfully submitted that present appellant has also approached this Hon'ble Court earlier before making the transfer of said vehicle in the name of present appellant by way of filing Criminal Misc.Appln.No.508 of 2012 wherein this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 22.10.2012 was pleased to reject the application; however it was observed that appellant was at liberty to file a fresh application after getting Muddamal vehicle transferred in the name of present appellant which shall be considered in accordance with law on merits by concerned court below which it annexed herewith and marked Annexure-C. 3.6 It is respectfully submitted that since thereafter the present appellant has carried out the required step to transfer ownership in the name of present appellant, the fresh application was moved before the learned JMFC, Wadhwan for release of Muddamal on 2.2.2012 under Sec.451 of code of Criminal Procedure wherein the learned JMFC, Wadhwan held an enquiry wherein the original owner i.e. Laxmaisinh Chauhan appeared before the court and stated that the said vehicle is now sold to the present appellant. It is further submitted that Haribhai Bijalbhai Marwadi was also given notice for the said action wherein he also appeared and submitted no objection for giving custody of Muddamal article to the present appellant which is also elaborately mentioned by learned JMFC, Wadhwan in the order. It is submitted that after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case the learned JMFC was pleased to hand over custody of Muddamal truck to the present appellant by way of passing reasoned order dated 21.5.2011. The copy of order is passed by learned JMFC, Wadhwan releasing Muddamal is annexed herewith and marked Annexure-D to this petition. 3.7 It is submitted the said order remain unchallenged before the appellate authority and thus same has attained finality. 3.8 It is respectfully submitted that thereafter the present appellant visited Joravarnagar police station for releasing Muddamal wherein it was informed to the present appellant that Muddamal truck is also seized in one offence registered before Bechraji police station as CR No.I-66 of 2009 registered under Sec.395, 397, 412 of the IPC and therefore it was asked to the present appellant to get an order from the Hon'ble Court for releasing of Muddamal in the above said FIR. 3.9 It is submitted that thereafter present appellant approached the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mehsana by way of filing Criminal Misc. Application No.980 of 2011 for releasing of Muddamal which came to be rejected by court below on various grounds. Copy of the order passed below Criminal Misc. Application No. 980 of 2011 dated 22.6.2012 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mehsana is annexed herewith and marked Annexure-E to this petition. 3.10 It is submitted that thereafter with reference to CR No.I.66 of 2009 the same was put to trial by way of sessions case No.11 of 201 as well as 12 of 2011 wherein at the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit all the accused persons. The copy of the order passed in Sessions Case No.11 of 2011 dated 30.4.2013 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mehsana is annexed herewith and marked Annexure-F to this petition. 3.11 It is submitted that in the said order of acquittal the learned Addl. The copy of the order passed in Sessions Case No.11 of 2011 dated 30.4.2013 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mehsana is annexed herewith and marked Annexure-F to this petition. 3.11 It is submitted that in the said order of acquittal the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not observed anything in relation to the releasing of Muddamal and therefore the present appellant was constrained to move an application for releasing of Muddamal by way of filing Criminal Misc. Application No.101 of 2014 which came to be rejected by 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Mehsana by order dated 5.8.2014.” 3.1 Learned Advocate then invited attention of the Court to Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Learned Advocate submitted that the learned Judge ought to have passed an order under Section 452, more particularly when the appellant before this Court was ready and willing to execute a bond for presenting the said muddamal as and when required in the Court. 3.2 Learned Advocate on instructions of his client states that his client is ready and willing to execute a bond even today before this Court. Besides that, his client is also ready and willing to undertake to this Court that he will maintain the muddamal in proper condition and will see to it that the same does not deteriorate and the same is not transferred to anybody by any mode without the prior permission of the Court. 3.3 Learned Advocate for the appellant invited attention of the Court to a decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283. Learned advocate submitted that the Hon'ble the Apex Court after considering in detail the question of return of muddamal was pleased to observe in paras-12 to 21 as under:- “12. For this purposes, 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 panchanama 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. (3) After taking proper security. 13. For this purpose, the Court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451 Cr. (3) After taking proper security. 13. 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 or 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. 14. 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 kept in police custody, it would be open to the SIIO 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 a longer period for the purpose of investigation and identification. For currency notes, similar procedure can be followed. Vehicles 15. 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 Magistrates 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. 16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over vehicles to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the persons concerned. 17. 16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over vehicles to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the persons concerned. 17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such-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 pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. 18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If Insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared. 19. For articles such as seized liquor also, prompt action should be taken in disposing it of after preparing necessary panchnama. If sample is required to be taken, sample may kept properly after sending it to the chemical analyser, if required. But in no case, large quantity of liquor should be stored at the police station. No purpose is served by such storing. 20. Similarly for the Narcotic drugs also, for its identification, procedure under Section 451 Cr. P.C. should be followed of recording evidence and disposal. Its identity could be on Page 9 of 14 Page 10 of 14 said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. the basis of evidence recorded by the Magistrate. P.C. should be followed of recording evidence and disposal. Its identity could be on Page 9 of 14 Page 10 of 14 said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. the basis of evidence recorded by the Magistrate. Samples also should be sent immediately to the Chemical Analyser so that subsequently, a contention may not be raised that the article which was seized was not the same. 21. However these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr. P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly.” 3.4 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that it is only on account of non-compliance of the observations made by the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that the muddamal articles remain either at the Police Station or in the Court and go on getting deteriorated from day-to-day and a day comes when the muddamal articles become of no use and no value. As against that, handing over of muddamal after following the procedure as referred to by the Hon'ble the Apex Court in para-13 of recording of evidence as provided under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code will serve the interest of justice. 3.5 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that many a times it happens that at the end of trial, the Court comes to conclusion that the muddamal article was unnecessarily detained, but in the meanwhile the muddamal loses its worth and the party suffers loss which is not possible to be compensated by anybody much less the State. 4. This Court is of the opinion that the appeal is required to be allowed. 5. ADMIT. At the request of the learned Advocate for the appellant, to which learned APP has no objection, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 6. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed. 4. This Court is of the opinion that the appeal is required to be allowed. 5. ADMIT. At the request of the learned Advocate for the appellant, to which learned APP has no objection, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 6. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 05.08.2014 passed by learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Misc. Application No.101 of 2014 is quashed and set aside. (I) The Court below is directed to hand over custody of muddamal truck bearing registration No.GJ-18-U-8233 to the present appellant after drawing the panchnama of muddamal with necessary photographs of muddamal truck and if required, after videography of the muddamal truck. (II) The appellant is directed to execute a bond and furnish security of an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to the satisfaction of the Court below. (III) The appellant to file an undertaking to this Court with regard to proper maintenance of the muddamal truck and non-transference of the same without the permission of the Court. (IV) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the Court to the effect that he will see to it that he does not indulge in any illegal activity with the help of the muddamal truck and that he will not allow anybody to indulge into any illegal activity with the help of the muddamal truck. Direct service is permitted. Appeal allowed.