JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the Order dated 6.1.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Bhilwara (for short Revisional Court hereinafter) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 71/2014, whereby the said Revision Petition has been dismissed. The said Revision Petition was filed by the petitioner against the Order dated 1.8.2014 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Regular Case No. 498/2009, whereby the application filed by the petitioner with permission to sell the vehicle-tanker bearing No. GJ-15-UU-7779 was rejected. 2. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, are that M/s. VESPAR owned by proprietor Jimmi H. Jangalwala is in business of transporting milk in various parts of the country and is owning several tankers for that purpose. One of the tankers of M/s. VESPAR bearing registration No.GJ-15-UU-7779 met with an accident on 26.10.2009 within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara and a case was registered against the driver of the said tanker for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A I.P.C. In connection with the said F.I.R., the vehicle in question was seized by the police and later on charge-sheet was filed against the accused-persons in the Trial Court. The Trial Court had released the vehicle in question on 'Supurdaginama' to the petitioner and at present, the petitioner is in possession of it. 3. The petitioner moved an application before the Trial Court with the prayer that since the vehicle in question is not being used in transportation of milk a the same has become old, permission may be granted to sell it. The said application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Trial Court vide Order dated 1.8.2014. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred the aforesaid Revision Petition, however, the Revisional Court has rejected the said Revision Petition vide impugned Order dated 6.1.2015. Hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner company has so many tankers for transporting the milk and they are used only for 3-4 years and thereafter they cannot be useful for the purpose of transporting the milk. Hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner company has so many tankers for transporting the milk and they are used only for 3-4 years and thereafter they cannot be useful for the purpose of transporting the milk. It is submitted that after release of the vehicle in question on 'Supurdaginama', the same was got repaired but at present is not being used in transportation of the milk and lying in a garage. It is contended that since the vehicle in question is not in use and lying idle, its condition is being deteriorated day by day and, therefore, the petitioner moved an application before the Trial Court with the prayer to give permission to sell it but the Trial Court has illegally rejected the said prayer vide impugned Order dated 1.8.2014. It is contended that the Revisional Court has also illegally rejected the Revision Petition. It is reiterated that since the vehicle became old and cannot be used for the purpose of transportation of the milk, permission may be granted to sell the said vehicle. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the vehicle in question is not required to be produced in the Court during the trial and after releasing the same on 'Supurdaginama', it was repaired and its condition has been changed. It is further submitted that the photographs of the vehicle in question can be taken for the purpose of its identity and can be used during the course of trial. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decision of Allahabad High Court rendered in M/s. Zoom Movers Proprietary Concern v. State of U.P., 2011(1) Cr CC 221 (Allahabad) , and argued that in similar circumstances, the Allahabad High Court has granted permission to sell the vehicle while giving direction to keep the photographs of the vehicle in the record of the Court. 6. On the strength of the above arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the impugned Orders dated 6.1.2015 and 1.8.2014 passed by both the Courts below may be set aside and the permission may be granted to the petitioner to sell the vehicle in question. 7. 6. On the strength of the above arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the impugned Orders dated 6.1.2015 and 1.8.2014 passed by both the Courts below may be set aside and the permission may be granted to the petitioner to sell the vehicle in question. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the Petition and argued that the Courts below have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order, therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. The Allahabad High Court in M/s. Zoom Movers Proprietary Concern v. State of U.P. (supra) has held as under:- "5. Admittedly the petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid vehicle and there is no dispute to this extent. It is a matter of common practise that the accidental vehicles are not produced during the trial. Ordinarily the Investigating Officer gets the vehicle examined from a technical person, who prepares a report regarding the physical condition of the vehicle and mechanical defect if any, and the memo so prepared, is ordinarily used as evidence during the trial. If a vehicle involved in an accident suffers any damage and can not ply on road without removal of the damage, the owner of the vehicle can not be asked to wait for the conclusion of the trial and keep the vehicle in the damaged condition and produced the same during the trial. Therefore, it would be appropriate in the interest of justice to direct for having photographs of the vehicle prepared from various angles so that identity of the vehicle as well as damages caused to the vehicle may come in the photographs. The purpose would be served if the photographs with negatives along with the report of the technical inspection of the vehicle are produced during the trial. In this view of the matter, the condition directing the petitioner not to dispose of the vehicle and keep the vehicle safely appears to be unwarranted in law. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case (supra), the Apex Court has also formulated the principles of taking of photographs of the seized vehicle and preparation of its panchnama before the release. Therefore the condition imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate prohibiting the petitioner from transferring the vehicle or disposing of the same, appear to be unwarranted in law." 10. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case (supra), the Apex Court has also formulated the principles of taking of photographs of the seized vehicle and preparation of its panchnama before the release. Therefore the condition imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate prohibiting the petitioner from transferring the vehicle or disposing of the same, appear to be unwarranted in law." 10. In the case in hand, admitted position is this that after releasing the vehicle in question on 'Supurdaginama', the petitioner got it repaired for the purpose of plying it on the road. Learned Public Prosecutor has failed to satisfy this Court how the vehicle in question is required for the purpose of trial of the case when the report regarding physical condition of the vehicle and mechanical defect, at the time of accident, is available on record of the Trial Court. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and no body else has claimed its custody. Hence, keeping in view the law laid down by the Allahabad High Court in M/s. Zoom Movers Proprietary Concern v. Stated U.P. (supra), this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. The Orders dated 6.1.2015 and 1.8.2014 passed by both the Courts below are set aside and it is directed that the latest photographs of the vehicle taken from various angles be taken on record and thereafter, the Trial Court, after preparation of panchnama may allow the petitioner to transfer the vehicle or disposing of the same.Petition allowed. *******