ORDER : 1. RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of the respondent State. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent no. 2. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 06.07.2019 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh in Criminal Revision Application No. 9 of 2019 and to issue direction for the release of the truck bearing registration No. GJ-12-Y-8333. 3. The facts in brief are that on 21.06.2018 the petitioner herein had purchased a truck bearing Registration No. GJ-12-Y-8333 from Magma Fincorp Ltd. Gandhidham for a total consideration of Rs. 5,33,000/-. It appears that on the same day the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs. 4,93,000/- to the dealer and another Rs. 40,000/- to one of the partners of the dealer company. Pursuant thereto, the possession of the truck in question along with necessary documents were handed over to the petitioner. 3.1 It appears that on 18.08.2018 the respondent no. 2 herein filed the impugned first information report being I-C.R. No. 138 of 2018 registered with Bhuj City ‘B’ Division Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 114 of IPC inter-alia stating that he is engaged in the business of transportation and also used to purchase and sell trucks. It was alleged that before about six years, he had purchased the truck in question from one Karsanji Pragji by way of an agreement to sell for a consideration of Rs. 11,55,000/- in pursuance of which, the vehicle in question was also transferred to his name. Thereafter, on 27.02.2017, the son of respondent no. 2 sold the vehicle in question to one Sodha Dipaksinh Pratapsinh for a total consideration of Rs. 13,25,000/-. The said Sodha Dipaksinh Pratapsinh was required to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash towards the first installment and thereafter, the purchaser had to pay Rs. 50,000/- for three months and the remaining amount of Rs. 11,25,000/- in 24 installments of Rs. 30,000/- each and the 25th installment to be of Rs. 4,05,000/-. 3.2 However, subsequently, the complainant came to know that said Sodha Dipaksinh Pratapsinh has sold the truck in question to uncle Bhoomsinh Dajaji Sodha. However, as Sodha Dipaksinh Pratapsinh had not paid the remaining amount of Rs. 11,25,000/- in 24 installments of Rs. 30,000/- each and the 25th installment to be of Rs. 4,05,000/-. 3.2 However, subsequently, the complainant came to know that said Sodha Dipaksinh Pratapsinh has sold the truck in question to uncle Bhoomsinh Dajaji Sodha. However, as Sodha Dipaksinh Pratapsinh had not paid the remaining amount of Rs. 2,86,000/- to him, the complainant did not sign the TTO Form on behalf of Dipaksinh or Bhoomsinh. It was further alleged that no transfer documents were executed in favour of Bhoomsinh Dajaji Sodha/Mahendra Thakkar and that in order to derive monetary gain, the accused had forged his signature on the TTO Form and produced the same before the RTO, Bhuj. 3.3 In pursuance of the filing of the impugned first information report, the vehicle in question was seized by the police on 26.10.2018. The petitioner filed an application under section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of learned C.J.M. Bhuj praying for interim custody of the vehicle in question. However, the said application was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 24.01.2019. 3.4 Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the petitioner herein preferred a revision application being Criminal Revision Application No. 9 of 2019 before the Sessions Court, Bhuj-Kachchh. However, the said application was also rejected by the revisional Court vide judgment and order dated 24.01.2019. Being dissatisfied with the orders passed by the Courts below, the petitioner herein has preferred the present petition. 4. Mr. Darshan Varandani, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that all the original documents with respect to the vehicle in question are in the name of the petitioner and the possession of the said vehicle is also with the petitioner. It was submitted that respondent no. 2, original complainant, had sold the vehicle in question to one Sodha Dipaksinh Pratapsinh on 27.02.2017 for a total consideration of Rs. 13,25,000/- and that respondent no. 2 and said Sodha Dipaksinh Pratapsinh had drawn certain terms regarding the mode and method of payment of the amount of sale consideration. It appears that the erstwhile purchaser - Sodha Dipaksinh Pratapsinh has not paid Rs. 2,86,000/- to the original complainant. 13,25,000/- and that respondent no. 2 and said Sodha Dipaksinh Pratapsinh had drawn certain terms regarding the mode and method of payment of the amount of sale consideration. It appears that the erstwhile purchaser - Sodha Dipaksinh Pratapsinh has not paid Rs. 2,86,000/- to the original complainant. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that if at all any amount towards the sale consideration of the vehicle in question has remained outstanding, then the same has to be recovered from the erstwhile purchaser - Sotta Dipaksinh Pratapsinh and not from the petitioner and for that purpose, the original complainant shall have to initiate appropriate civil proceedings before the competent civil Court. It was, therefore, prayed that both the Courts below have erred in not releasing the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner. 5. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, drew attention of the Court to the reasons assigned by both the Courts below in the impugned judgment and orders. It was submitted that the Courts below were completely justified in rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner since charge-sheet was yet to be filed. It was, therefore, prayed that the present petition deserves to be rejected. 6. Heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused the documents on record. Considering the facts of the case, a reference to the provisions of Section 451 Cr.P.C. would be apposite: “451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases - When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper 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.” 7. 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.” 7. Sec. 451 Cr.P.C. mandates that when any property is produced before any criminal Court during the trial, the Court may make order for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the trial. The object of Section 451 Cr.P.C. is well defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, 2003 (1) GLH 307 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court have extracted Para-4 of the judgment delivered in the case of Smt. Basava Kom Dyamangouda Patil vs. State of Mysore and Another, (1977) 4 SCC 358 , 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 it 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 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. 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. To avoid such a situation, in our view, powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised promptly and at the earliest.” 7.1. Further, in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), in respect of motor-vehicles, it has been observed as under: “Vehicles: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.” 8. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the truck in question stands registered in the name of the petitioner herein. It transpires from the documents on record that the petitioner has also incurred substantial costs towards the maintenance of the vehicle in question. In the opinion of this Court, if the first owner of the vehicle in question has any dues to be recovered from the erstwhile owner of the vehicle, then he could recover the same by initiating appropriate civil proceedings before the competent civil Court. The document of Magma Fincorp Ltd. dated 21.06.2018 reflects that the amount of Rs. 4,93,000/- has been received in the account of Mahendra Thakkar. The Certificate of Registration of the vehicle in question in the RTO records is in the name of the petitioner herein. The document of Magma Fincorp Ltd. dated 21.06.2018 reflects that the amount of Rs. 4,93,000/- has been received in the account of Mahendra Thakkar. The Certificate of Registration of the vehicle in question in the RTO records is in the name of the petitioner herein. The said vehicle is insured with The New India Assurance Company Ltd and the name of the petitioner has been reflected in the “insured” column of the Certificate of Insurance document. Now, when the RTO records reveal that the petitioner herein is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, there does not arise any question for disputing the ownership of the vehicle in question since the person in whose name the vehicle stands registered is to be treated as the owner of the vehicle. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case, this Court is of the opinion that both the Courts below have seriously erred in not releasing the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner. 9. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.01.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj-Kachchh in Bhuj City ‘B’ Division Police Station I-C.R. No. 138 of 2018 as also the order dated 06.07.2019 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh in Criminal Revision Application No. 9 of 2019 are quashed and set aside. The following further order is passed: (A) The authority concerned is directed to forthwith release the truck bearing registration No. GJ-12-Y-8333 in favour of the petitioner on executing a Bond of Rs. 4,93,000/- (Rupees four lacs ninety three thousand only), which shall remain till the disposal of the trial. (B) The Bhuj City ‘B’ Division Police Station shall draw Panchnama of the vehicle and to take the photographs in presence of the petitioner before handing over the same to the petitioner. The said panchnama and photographs shall be produced by the police on record of the trial. (C) The petitioner shall not use the vehicle for any criminal activity or sell/transfer the muddamal vehicle or change the identity of the motorcycle till the disposal of trial. The Bond to be executed before the trial Court concerned. 10. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute.