ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 21.07.2015 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Hanumangarh in criminal revision No.50/2015 (62/2015) whereby affirming the order dated 04.10.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Hanumangarh in regular criminal case No.785/2009 (FIR No.785/2006) wherein application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. was rejected. 2. The petitioner is a Company engaged in Agri Business and is having many branches all over the country. The petitioner has a godown on lease and license basis in Hanumangarh taken from M/s. Hanumangarh Rolling Mills Ltd. through its Director accused Hari Prasad Gattani. The concerned lease and license was entered on 14.05.2006. On 26.12.2006 large number of bags were missing from the stock, for which an FIR was lodged on 26.12.2006 bearing No. 785/2006 at Police Station Hanumangarh Junction for the offences under Sections 341, 454, 380 of IPC. At the time of investigation, the police had recovered 6340 bags belonging to the petitioner at the instance of information furnished by accused person Hari Prasad Gattani. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for custody of the seized goods and miscellaneous application was also filed by accused Hari Prasad Gattani on 05.01.2007. 3. Similar application was also filed by M/s. Shiv Ji Ram and Sons, Hanumangarh Junction and another by Vinod Kumar, Hanumangarh Junction. However, the learned trial court directed for auction of the wheat stocks while dismissing the applications filed by all the four parties seeking custody of the seized goods. The parties challenged the order but the same was upheld by the revisional court and against the same, criminal misc. petitions were filed, which were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2007, while further upholding the said orders passed by the learned trial court and the revisional court. The investigation was completed and final report bearing charge-sheet No.569 dated 31.12.2007 was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Hanumangarh and as per the case of the prosecution, the accused-respondent was prima facie found to have committed the offence under Sections 341, 454 and 380 of IPC and thus, the prosecution submitted a version before the learned trial Court that the wheat bags were in fact stolen by the accused person from the lawful custody of the petitioner. 4. 4. Learned trial court on 29.03.2011 passed an order whereby the bail bonds of the accused-respondent were forfeited and the accused was declared absconder. Thus, the petitioner again moved an application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. on 07.12.2010 for releasing the amount realized from auction of the seized goods. The application is on record and was not contested by the other so-called claimant, who included the accused person and the persons who could have claimed themselves to have stepped into the shoes of the accused persons. 5. However, the learned trial court dismissed the application on 04.10.2013 and the petitioner has preferred criminal misc. petition No.5 of 2014 titled as 'ITC Limited v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.' by impleading accused person Hari Prasad Gattani as party respondent. The Court vide order dated 10.04.2010 dispensed with the service of the accused and disposed of the aforesaid petition vide order dated 13.05.20105. The order dated 10.04.2014 passed by this Court gave liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate revision petition against the original order of dismissal dated 04.10.2013. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision petition challenging the order dated 04.10.2013 and the same was registered before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Hanumangarh as criminal revision No. 62/2015 and this criminal revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 21.07.2015, while observing the earlier events and earlier litigation. Against dismissal of the revision petition vide order dated 21.07.2015, this misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the charge-sheet (Page No.83 of the paper book), in which the conclusion has been recorded by the investigating authority making out a prima facie case against the petitioner and recovery of the property stolen by accused Hari Prasad Gattani, that is, the concerned wheat bags from the possession of the petitioner. The other persons who have claimed themselves as claimants also finds place in the charge-sheet. Hemraj, Shivji Ram, Vinod Kumar have also got their statements recorded before the investigating authority regarding the theft of the wheat bags. 7. The other persons who have claimed themselves as claimants also finds place in the charge-sheet. Hemraj, Shivji Ram, Vinod Kumar have also got their statements recorded before the investigating authority regarding the theft of the wheat bags. 7. It is further pointed out from the page No. 86 of the paper book that the particulars of the witnesses, in which all these three persons raising claims are reflected as prosecution witnesses, and thus, it cannot be safely assumed that the other claimants are either the main accused or prosecution witnesses, as admitted by the prosecution in their charge-sheet. 8. Counsel for the petitioner also drew attention of this Court towards the order dated 21.07.2015 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Hanumangarh, whereby accused Hari Prasad Gattani has been declared absconder and whereby the learned trial court has observed that the final decision regarding ownership of the concerned wheat bags shall be decided at the time of passing of the final judgment 9. Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Manish Shishodiya has pointed out that once the main accused has been declared absconder, then the trial is not likely to be completed very soon and therefore, the right of the petitioner is adversely affected thereby, and thus he, in fact, is the aggrieved party and suffered the theft, which was found prima facie proven by the prosecution against the complainant and resultantly his interest would get compromised on account of such withholding of huge amount. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the claim pertaining to the ownership or right of the amount stolen shall be determined only after the final judgment is passed, and then only the same would be released to the petitioner but the same would cause heavy loss to the petitioner and therefore the amount may be released subject to their furnishing the bank guarantee of the equal amount to the satisfaction of the Court. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 , relevant portion of which is as follows :- "4. Learned counsel further referred to the relevant Sections 451 and 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads thus- "451. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 , relevant portion of which is as follows :- "4. Learned counsel further referred to the relevant Sections 451 and 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads thus- "451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.-When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry of trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the property custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "property" includes (a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody. (b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence. 457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.- (1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property. (2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation." 5. Section 451 clearly empowers the Court to pass appropriate orders with regard to such property, such as- (1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial; (2) to order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of, after recording such evidence as it think necessary; (3) if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay to dispose of the same. 6. It is submitted that despite wide powers, proper orders are not passed by the Courts. It is also pointed out that in the State of Gujarat there is Gujarat Police Manual for disposal and custody of such articles. As per the Manual also, various circulars are issued for maintenance of proper registers for keeping the muddamal articles in safe custody. 7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely :- 1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; 2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; 3. If the proper panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and 4. This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles. 8. The question of proper custody of the seized article is raised in number of matters. In Smt. Basayya Kom Dayamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore and Anr. 1977 Cri.L.J. 1141 : 1977 Cri.L.J. 1141, this Court dealt with a case where the seized articles were not available for being returned to the complainant. In that case, the recovered ornaments were kept in a trunk in the police station and later it was found missing, the question was with regard to payment of those articles. In that context, the Court observed as under :- "4. In that case, the recovered ornaments were kept in a trunk in the police station and later it was found missing, the question was with regard to payment of those articles. In that context, the Court observed as under :- "4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police, it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain its ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquire or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The High Court and the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing that one of the essential requirements of the Code is that the articles concerned must be produced before the Court or should be in its custody. The object of the Code seems to be that any property which is in the control of the Court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the Court and a just and proper order should be passed by the Court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the Court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance." 9. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the Court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance." 9. The Court further observed that where the property is stolen, lost or destroyed and there is no prima facie defence made out that the State or its officers had taken due care and caution to protect the property, the Magistrate may, in an appropriate case, where the ends of justice so require, order payment of the value of the property. 10. To avoid a situation, in our view, powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised promptly and at the earliest. Valuable Articles and Currency Notes 11. With regard to valuable articles, such as, golden or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones, it is submitted that it is of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over. In our view, this submission requires to be accepted. In such cases, Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 Cr.P.C. at the earliest. 12. For this purpose, 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 panchnama 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; and (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 of 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. The Court should see that photographs of 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 SHO 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 Magistrate 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 concerned persons. 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. 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 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." 11. The purport of the case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the power under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously. The reason being that owner of the article should not suffer because of it remaining unused and the police should not be required to keep the article in safe custody. It has been further laid down in the aforecited case law that while giving custody of the article, the article should be released on proper security. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that the earlier application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed and thereafter, the same was affirmed by this Court and therefore, once it has been decided that the amount shall be released to the petitioner only after the final judgment is passed, then this Court ought not intervene in the matter at this stage. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor also mentioned that the releasing of the amount or any decision pertaining to the right of having that amount would be determined only after final outcome of the trial. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor also mentioned that the releasing of the amount or any decision pertaining to the right of having that amount would be determined only after final outcome of the trial. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that if the petitioner is declared as the valid owner of the amount, then it shall be against the prevailing position where the ownership of the wheat bags proceeds obtained from the auction were to be kept pending until the decision, at the final stage of the judgment. 14. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record of the case as well as impugned judgment, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to first decide the ownership or the rights pertaining to the amount in question. However, this Court finds that the prosecution itself has held that other claimants are either principle accused of the stolen property or the prosecution witnesses as per the charge-sheet and therefore, the claim of the petitioner is clearly made out as per the version of the prosecution itself. This Court also finds substance in the argument of counsel for the petitioner that even without deciding the right to have the amount permanently as owner, the amount can be released to the petitioner on furnishing the bank guarantee renewable from year to year basis. 15. In light of the fact that the principle accused is absconding and the trial is not likely to be completed at a sooner stage, this misc. petition is allowed and the order dated 21.07.2015 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Hanumangarh and order dated 04.10.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate are quashed and set aside. 16. It is directed that the money deposited with the treasurer may be released to the authorized person on behalf of the petitioner as an interim measure and subject to the conclusion of criminal trial passing directions pertaining to the final rights regarding the amount in question strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be bound to abide by the final outcome of the criminal trial and while seeking custody, the petitioner shall give an undertaking before the learned trial court that he accepts the amount as an interim measure and is taking the custody of the amount, subject to the conclusion of the criminal trial. 17. The petitioner shall be bound to abide by the final outcome of the criminal trial and while seeking custody, the petitioner shall give an undertaking before the learned trial court that he accepts the amount as an interim measure and is taking the custody of the amount, subject to the conclusion of the criminal trial. 17. It is further made clear that a bank guarantee shall be furnished before the learned trial Court equal to the amount of Rs.51,50,000/- renewable from year to year basis until the final outcome of the criminal trial by the learned trial Court finally deciding the ownership of the amount in question. The same shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of furnishing a certified copy of this order. However, the final claim shall depend upon the final judgment to be passed by the trial court in the criminal trial, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and any other person. 18. Consequently, this misc. petition is allowed.