ORDER : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Rule. Ms. Nisha Thakor, learned Additional Public Prosecutor wavies service of Rule on behalf of the respondent State. Though served, respondent No. 2 has not entered appearance. 3. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner has prayed for direction, for quashing and setting aside the order dated 22.02.2016 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Valsad in Criminal Revision Application No. 101 of 2015 and has thereby prayed that the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 be allowed. 4. Brief facts, as emerging from the record, are as under. 4.1 The petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of banking and providing loan for the purpose of purchase of the old vehicle on hypothecation basis. One Imtiyaz Yakubbhai Vohara that is respondent No. 2 had availed auto loan of Rs. 3,70,000/- for the purchase of vehicle Eicher Tempo bearing Registration No. GJ-23-V-739 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the vehicle in question’) vide Loan Agreement No. 100944 from the petitioner on 10.01.2015 by way of hypothecation agreement. Respondent No. 2 was obliged to repay the loan in 30 monthly installments, each of Rs. 16,200/- and that the said loan facility was subject to various terms and conditions. The respondent No. 2 failed to pay the sum of Rs. 4,20,900/- with continuous default in the repayment. As on 17.08.2015, an amount of Rs. 4,20,900/- was due towards the closure of the loan. 4.2 As per the petitioner, respondent No. 2 had made the payment of some of the installments. While violating the terms and conditions of the hypothecation agreement, used the vehicle in question for illegal means. As a result whereof, the vehicle in question was detained by the Pardi police and was taken in custody. 4.3 Apropos which, the petitioner submitted an application dated 20.08.2015 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Pardi, inter-alia, seeking release of the vehicle in question. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Pardi, vide order dated 02.11.2015, rejected the application of the petitioner. 4.3 Apropos which, the petitioner submitted an application dated 20.08.2015 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Pardi, inter-alia, seeking release of the vehicle in question. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Pardi, vide order dated 02.11.2015, rejected the application of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order, the petitioner preferred a revision application being Criminal Revision Application No. 101 of 2015 before the Sessions Court, Valsad. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Valsad, vide order dated 22.02.2016, partly allowed the revision application. The Court below granted the permission for release of the vehicle in question, but with a condition that there shall not be any change or alienation in the ownership of the vehicle in question. 4.4 Against the imposition of such condition, the petitioner has preferred present petition challenging the order dated 22.02.2016 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Valsad in Criminal Revision Application No. 101 of 2015. 5. Mr. Darshan P. Kinariwala, learned advocate appearing with Mr. Nikunj D. Balar, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Court below has not properly considered the facts of the present case and committed an error in imposing the condition, inter-alia, restricting the sale or transfer and change in the ownership of the vehicle in question. It is submitted that if the petitioner is not permitted to sell the vehicle in question, it will further deteriorate and will not be worthy of usage in future. It is submitted that the Court below has not properly considered the judgment of the Apex Court in case of General Insurance Council and Others vs. State of A.P. 2010 AIR SCW 2967, relied upon by the petitioner, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held in paragraph 14 that insurer be permitted to move separate application for release of the recovered vehicle and ordinarily, release shall be made within a period of 30 days from the date of the application. 5.1 It is submitted that the petitioner had re-financed the loan to respondent No. 2 and as per the instructions, respondent had repaid the loan to Chola Mandalam Finance Company Limited. It is submitted that Chola Mandalam Finance Company Limited has not claimed the possession of the vehicle in question for all these years. 5.1 It is submitted that the petitioner had re-financed the loan to respondent No. 2 and as per the instructions, respondent had repaid the loan to Chola Mandalam Finance Company Limited. It is submitted that Chola Mandalam Finance Company Limited has not claimed the possession of the vehicle in question for all these years. It is submitted that the borrower has raised no objection against granting custody of the vehicle in question to the petitioner though, was duly served through RPAD and had chosen not to remain present. 5.2 It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions as may be imposed by this Court; however, with a liberty to sell the vehicle in question. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of General Insurance Council and Others vs. State of A.P. (supra) to contend that the Apex Court has issued direction with regard to the seized vehicles and their release. Learned advocate for the petitioner has also placed reliance on various orders passed by the coordinate benches of this Court releasing the vehicles by imposing conditions. It is thus submitted that applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court so also various orders passed by the coordinate benches of this Court, the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be permitted to sell the vehicle in question by imposing suitable conditions. Learned advocate for the petitioner, upon instructions, has stated that the petitioner has already furnished a bond of Rs. 13,50,000/- in compliance of the order dated 22.02.2016. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Nisha Thakor, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State has opposed the petition and submitted that the vehicle in question was involved in the offence under the provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and at this stage, permission for selling the vehicle in question to the petitioner may not be granted. It is submitted that Criminal Case No. 150 of 2016 was registered against the co-accused Ved Prakash which was tried and that the said accused has been acquitted vide order dated 9.9.2016. So far as the muddamal is concerned, the Court has not passed any order. So far as accused No. 2 is concerned, Criminal Case No. 1429 of 2018 was registered and the same is pending adjudication with the learned Magistrate, Pardi. So far as the muddamal is concerned, the Court has not passed any order. So far as accused No. 2 is concerned, Criminal Case No. 1429 of 2018 was registered and the same is pending adjudication with the learned Magistrate, Pardi. Reliance has been placed on the oral judgment dated 05.04.2018 of this Court in Special Criminal Application No. 2185 of 2018, wherein the coordinate bench of this Court has, though granted permission for release of the vehicle of the muddamal, restricted the applicant from alienating, transferring or creating any charge over the vehicle till the conclusion of the trial. Further, reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of Jhala Ghanshyamsingh Mobatsingh vs. State of Gujarat, 2018 (2) GLR 1516 . It is thus submitted that the petition may not be entertained and deserves to be rejected. 7. Heard Ms. Darshan P. Kinariwala, learned advocate with Mr. Nikunj D. Balar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Nisha Thakor, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 8. Pertinently, the Apex Court in case of General Insurance Council (supra) has observed in paragraphs 14 and 15 as under: “14. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid information is required to be utilised and followed scrupulously and has to be given positively as and when asked for by the Insurer. We also feel, it is necessary that in addition to the directions issued by this Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) considering the mandate of Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Code, the following further directions with regard to seized vehicles are required to be given: “(A) Insurer may be permitted to move a separate application for release of the recovered vehicle as soon as it is informed of such recovery before the Jurisdictional Court. Ordinarily, release shall be made within a period of 30 days from the date of the application. The necessary photographs may be taken duly authenticated and certified and a detailed panchamama may be prepared before such release. (B) The photographs so taken may be used as secondary evidence during trial. Hence, physical production of the vehicle may be dispensed with. Ordinarily, release shall be made within a period of 30 days from the date of the application. The necessary photographs may be taken duly authenticated and certified and a detailed panchamama may be prepared before such release. (B) The photographs so taken may be used as secondary evidence during trial. Hence, physical production of the vehicle may be dispensed with. (C) Insurer would submit an undertaking/guarantee to remit the proceeds from the sale/auction of the vehicle conducted by the Insurance Company in the event that the Magistrate finally adjudicates that the rightful ownership of the vehicle, pursuant to the application for release of the recovered vehicle. Insistence on personal bonds may be dispensed with looking to the corporate structure of the insurer. 15. It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when vehicles are seized and kept in various police stations, not only they occupy substantial space of the police stations but upon being kept in open, are also prone to fast natural decay on account of weather conditions. Even a good maintained vehicle loses its road worthiness if it is kept stationary in the police station for more than fifteen days. Apart from the above, it is also a matter of common knowledge that several valuable and costly parts of the said vehicles are either stolen or are cannibalised so that the vehicles become unworthy of being driven on road. To avoid all this, apart from the aforesaid directions issued hereinabove, we direct that all the State Governments/Union Territories/Director Generals of Police shall ensure macro implementation of the statutory provisions and further direct that the activities of each and every police stations, especially with regard to disposal of the seized vehicles be taken care of by the Inspector General of Police of the concerned Division/Commissioner of Police of the concerned cities/Superintendent of Police of the concerned district.” 9. Thus, the Apex Court has held that company may be permitted to file an application for release of the seized vehicle and necessary photographs may be taken duly authenticated and certified coupled with drawing of panchnama before release. It has been held that photographs so taken may be used as secondary evidence during the trial and accordingly physical production of the vehicle may be dispensed with. It has been held that photographs so taken may be used as secondary evidence during the trial and accordingly physical production of the vehicle may be dispensed with. In the present case, the Principal District and Sessions Court has already released the vehicle in question, however, with a restriction not to sell the vehicle in question. If the vehicle in question has been directed to be released, then in that case, expecting the applicant to retain the vehicle in question till the completion of trial will not serve the purpose of the applicant, considering the fact that the applicant being bank advancing finance would be desirous of recovering the outstanding loan amount. Besides, the petitioner has shown its readiness that if the trial Court finally adjudicates the rightful ownership of the vehicle, it undertakes to remit the proceeds from the sale. 10. Besides, while following the principles laid down in the case of General Insurance Council (supra), the coordinate benches, in the petitions with similar set of facts, have granted permissions to sell the vehicles by imposing suitable conditions. This Court, in the case of the petitioner itself, i.e. Ess Kay Auto Finance Pvt. Ltd. has passed an order in Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 2538 of 2014, observing in paragraphs 14, 15 and 18 as under: “14. It also appears from the report filed by the Police that the vehicle in question was used in the past even for transport of illicit liquor for which an offence has been registered against the respondent No. 2 at the Patan ‘B’ Division Police Station being C.R. No. 72 of 2013 of the offence under the Sections 66(1)(B), 65-(A)(E), 116(B) and Section 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. 15. The Vehicle in question is in the custody of the Police past almost more than two years. It is lying idle at the Police Station. By passage of time the condition of the vehicle must have deteriorated to a considerable extent. The trial will take its own time before it is concluded. The respondent No. 2 has no good intentions to repay the loan amount. 18. In the result, this application is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Court below are quashed and set aside. The concerned Police Station shall handover the possession of the car to the applicant at the earliest. The respondent No. 2 has no good intentions to repay the loan amount. 18. In the result, this application is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Court below are quashed and set aside. The concerned Police Station shall handover the possession of the car to the applicant at the earliest. It shall be open for the applicant company to sell the Mahindra Bolero Jeep bearing registration No. GJ-18-U-1467, after executing a bond in the sum of the amount of sale consideration before the trial Court. The applicant is at liberty to dispose of the vehicle in question after following the necessary procedure prescribed in law for the transfer of vehicle i.e. after drawing panchnama and taking photos of the vehicle. The applicant shall intimate the trial Court about the sale consideration received by it. The applicant shall also file an undertaking before the trial Court that he shall deposit the entire sale proceeds in the Court if required/ordered by the Court at the end of the trial. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.” 11. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it may be noted that the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of the banking and providing loan for the purpose of purchase of the old vehicle on hypothecation basis. Undisputedly, the petitioner had financed an auto loan of Rs. 3,70,000/- to respondent No. 2 for the purchase of vehicle in question. It is also not in dispute that respondent had paid only some of the EMIs out of total 30 EMIs and there was continuous default. It is also not in dispute that the amount of Rs. 4,20,000/- was due towards the closure of the loan. Further, the certificate issued by the Regional Transport Office, Nadiad, contains endorsement of hypothecation in favour of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the amount of Rs. 4,20,000/- was due towards the closure of the loan. Further, the certificate issued by the Regional Transport Office, Nadiad, contains endorsement of hypothecation in favour of the petitioner. As is discernible from the record, the vehicle in question has been seized as muddamal by the concerned Investigating Officer in connection with the FIR being I-CR No. 339/2015 registered with Pardi Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 66(1)(b), 65(a)(c), 81, 116(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 which led to filing of an application by the petitioner under the provisions of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to hand over the custody as well as permission for the sale of vehicle in question, so that outstanding loan amount can be recovered. 12. The learned Magistrate passed an order dated 21.11.2015 rejecting the application of the petitioner, inter-alia, observing that the loan has been availed of from two finance companies on the vehicle in question and thus, with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the application does not deserve to be entertained. 13. It is thereafter that the petitioner preferred revision application being Criminal Revision Application No. 101 of 2015 before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Valsad. While partly allowing the application, the learned Sessions Judge has permitted the release of the vehicle in question upon furnishing bond of Rs. 13,50,000/- however, condition has been imposed, inter-alia, that the same should not be sold, alienated or transferred. 14. Perceptibly, the First Information Report was registered in the year 2015 and since then the vehicle in question is in the custody of the police. It is the case of the petitioner that owing to lack of parking facilities, the vehicle in question is parked in the place open to sky and if the vehicle in question is allowed to remain in such a condition, it would sustain further damage, rendering it valueless. By now, it is more than 5 years that the vehicle in question is lying idle with the police authorities. In such an eventuality, observing the principles laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions, it would be in the fitness of things to permit the petitioner to sell the vehicle in question, imposing suitable conditions. 15. By now, it is more than 5 years that the vehicle in question is lying idle with the police authorities. In such an eventuality, observing the principles laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions, it would be in the fitness of things to permit the petitioner to sell the vehicle in question, imposing suitable conditions. 15. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and considering the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of General Insurance Council (supra) and considering the fact that a sum of Rs. 4,20,900/- is due towards closure of the loan which was availed of from the petitioner for the purchase of vehicle in question, the Court below ought to have granted permission to the petitioner to sell the vehicle in question by imposing suitable condition so that there is no loss to the petitioner as well. Under the circumstances and for the reasons recorded, the order dated 22.02.2016 passed by the learned Principal Sessions and District Judge, Valsad in Criminal Revision Application No. 101 of 2015 is modified to the extent, permitting the petitioner to sell the vehicle in question on the following conditions: (i) Before release of the vehicle in question, necessary photographs of vehicle in question be taken duly authenticated and certified and the same may be produced before the learned Magistrate. (ii) The petitioner shall submit an undertaking to remit the proceeds from the sale/auction of the vehicle in question in the event that the Magistrate finally adjudicates that the rightful ownership of the vehicle in question does not vest with the petitioner and/or it holds that the petitioner was not entitled to sell the vehicle in question. The said undertaking would be furnished at the time of release of the vehicle in question. All efforts shall be made by the petitioner to fetch maximum price while selling/auctioning the disputed vehicle in question. 16. With these observations and modifications, the petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.