ORDER : 1. The Revision Petitioner/Defacto Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition before this court seeking to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.11359 of 2015 (filed by the petitioner under section 451 of Cr.P.C) dated 17.12.2015 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur and to set aside the same. 2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, while passing the impugned order in Cr.M.P.No.11359 of 2015 in Cr.No.426 of 2015, on 17.12.2015, had observed the following: “Reply received. Heard, perused the records, reply received. The offence is under section 302 and 379 I.P.C. The offence is purely triable by the Hon'ble Sessions Judge. Further, the property is not produced before this Court till today. Charge sheet is also not yet filed before this court.” and resultantly dismissed the petition, in the interest of justice. 3. Challenging the dismissal order dated 17.12.2015 in Cr.M.P.No.11359 of 2015, passed by the trial court, the Revision Petitioner/Petitioner (defacto complainant) has projected the instant Criminal Revision Petition mainly contending that the impugned order is not tenable in the eye of Law because of the reason that in Law, the trial court is empowered under Section 451 of Cr.P.C to order interim custody of the vehicle and the only rider is that the trial court, while ordering to hand over the custody of vehicle as an interim measure can impose conditions/restrictions, as it deems it fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the given case. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner urges before this court that the trial court should have exercised its power bestowed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C and ought to have directed the Respondent/Police to produce the vehicle in question before it. 5. The other stand of the petitioner is that the trial court should have taken cognizance of the fact that the vehicle should have been seized by the Police and even though the same was not produced before the Court, yet in Law, there is no fetter for the court to order for the interim custody of the vehicle to its legitimate owner. 6. 6. Conversely, it is the submission of the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent that on 15.11.2015, at 11.00 hours, one Vignesh Kumar (the Revision Petitioner/complainant, who is the brother of the deceased) lodged a complaint before the respondent/Police stating that he and his deceased brother Ganesh Raman were running a Adhitya Transport in Adaikalapuram Road, Arumuganeri and that the accused one Mathan was working as a driver of the deceased. Later, on 15.11.2015, at 9.00 hours, one Justin, (who was working as a driver to the deceased) called the Revision Petitioner/Complainant (through phone), by stating that Mahindra XUV 500 car was standing at Ettaiyapuram By-Pass road and the accused had driven the said car and further informed that when he called the deceased, the same was switched off. The Revision Petitioner/Complainant immediately went to his office namely Adhitya Transport and found that the deceased (Ganesh Raman) had died due to blood injuries and he requested to take action against the accused. 7. It is represented on behalf of the Respondent that on the basis of the complaint of the Revision Petitioner/Complainant, a case in Arumuganeri Police Station Cr.No.426 of 2015 was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police under Sections 302 and 379 of I.P.C and later, the Inspector of Police took up the investigation of the case. 8. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) brings it to the notice of this Court that on 19.11.2015 at 10.15 hours, the accused (Madhan) surrendered before the Village Administrative Officer of Arumuganeri Village and that the accused gave a confession statement, which was duly recorded and subsequently, he was remanded by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur. 9. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the Respondent/Police submits that one gold ring (weighing 10 grams) and Mahindra XUV 500 Car, bearing registration No.TN 69 AW 9699 were seized and produced before the trial court. 10. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that the case is under investigation and as on date, post-mortem report is awaited. Further, the revision petitioner filed Cr.M.P.No.11360 of 2015 before the trial court praying for return of the vehicle (under section 451 of Cr.P.C) and the same was dismissed on 17.12.2015. 11. It is to be pointed out that the power under Section 451 of Cr.P.C is to be exercised by a Court of Law quickly and judiciously during enquiry or trial, bearing in mind numerous purposes viz. 11. It is to be pointed out that the power under Section 451 of Cr.P.C is to be exercised by a Court of Law quickly and judiciously during enquiry or trial, bearing in mind numerous purposes viz. (i) The owner of the vehicle would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation etc. (ii) The court or Police would not be required to keep the vehicle under its custody; (iii) If proper panchnama before handing over the vehicle is prepared, certainly, certainly, this Court is of the considered view that the same can be pressed into service, during evidence, instead of it is produced before the Court during enquiry/trial, if need be, the evidence should be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail, as per the decision pf the Honourable Supreme Court Ashok Kumar V. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2001 SCW Page 2314. 12. It is to be remembered for disposal of the property under Section 451 of Cr.P.C, it is essential that the vehicle or property should be under the control of the Learned Judicial Magistrate. Indeed, the orders passed both under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C are during the pendency of enquiry or trial in a given case. 13. At this stage, this Court cites the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 283 at special page 289 and 290, whereby and whereunder, at paragraph Nos.17 and 18, it is observed as follows: “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 done 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 a 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 the 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 the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company, then the 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 the 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.” 14. An order directing the custody of vehicle, after full enquiry, is deemed to be an order under Section 451 of Cr.P.C and the powers of the Learned Judicial Magistrate to order custody and possession are summary in nature. It cannot be lost sight of that the trial court is not to determine the issue of rights of the parties over a property. After all, it decides only about the custody of the property concerned, whether it is a vehicle or silver article or gold ornament as the case may be. 15. Be that as it may, as far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner has come out with a plea that he is the owner of the Mahindra Car bearing Regn.No.TN 69 AW 9699. At this juncture, this court aptly points out that the ingredients of Section 457 of Cr.P.C (relating to disposal of property procedure by police upon seizure of property) empowers a Court of Law to release a property seized by the police or an accused during investigation, but not yet produced before it, as per decision Amarjitsing V. State of Punjab reported in 1982 CrlLJ p.523 (Punjab and Haryana). 16. It is to be borne in mind that the powers of a Judicial Magistrate comes into the picture only when some investigation in respect of an offence is registered and the seizure is made of the property concerned. 16. It is to be borne in mind that the powers of a Judicial Magistrate comes into the picture only when some investigation in respect of an offence is registered and the seizure is made of the property concerned. In the considered opinion of this court, where the vehicle was confiscated by the police but the same was not produced by the police before any criminal court during any enquiry or trial nor it was used as evidence, the person entitled should be delivered possession of the vehicle forthwith, as per decision Narain V. State of Uttar Pradesh (1987) 3 Crimes page 538 (All). There is no second opinion of a very vital fact that where a vehicle in connection with an offence is lying and exposed to sun and rain at police station or court and the condition of the vehicle would be deteriorated by further detention of the vehicle, then interim custody of the vehicle would be handed over/given to the registered owner of the vehicle, on furnishing security, if the release of the property seized would in any manner cause prejudice or affect the course of justice, at the time of trial, then, the trial court may be justified in exercising its discretion to reject the claim for return. 17. However, on going through the impugned order dated 17.12.2015, passed by the trial court, this court is of the considered view that the reason ascribed for dismissal of the Cr.M.P.No.11359 of 2015 are clearly unsustainable in the eye of Law. As such, this court interferes with the said order dated 17.12.2015 in Cr.M.P.No.11359 of 2015 and sets aside the same, to prevent an aberration of justice and to promote substantial cause of justice. 18. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. Resultantly, the order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur is hereby set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Criminal Revision. The trial court is directed to restore Cr.M.P.No. 11359 of 2015 to its file and to pass a fresh speaking order on merits, of course, by outlining the process of reasoning in a qualitative and quantitative manner and that too in a dispassionate manner and also uninfluenced and untrammelled with any of the observations made by this Court in this Revision. The said fresh order in Cr.M.P.No.11359 of 2015 is directed to be passed by the trial court within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is also open to the Revision Petitioner/owner of the vehicle to produce certified copy of the order passed in Criminal Revision Petition before the trial court so as to enable the trial court to proceed further in the manner known to Law and in accordance with Law.