ORDER : 1. Heard on admission. 2. Admit. 3. With the consent of the parties, the case is heard finally. 4. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 01.07.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. H-18 of 2022, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 5. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this petition, are that, Tractor bearing No. CG-06/GS/6514 (henceforth “offending vehicle”) owned by petitioner, met with an accident on 04.06.2022. Crime was registered in Police Station, Tumgaon bearing Crime No. 140/2022 for offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and offending vehicle was seized. 6. Petitioner filed an application for release of offending vehicle before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund (C.G.) which came to be allowed on 17.06.2022. Learned Magistrate, while allowing the application has made a pre-condition of furnishing a bank security of Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash or to deposit an equivalent amount towards bank security in the name of concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and also submits a Supurdnama of Rs. 50,000/- along with certain other conditions, ordered for granting release of offending vehicle. 7. The order of Chief Judicial Magistrate was put to challenge by the petitioner in a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. H-18 of 2022, wherein the revisional Court while considering the provisions under Rule 240-A of Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (henceforth “Rules of 1994”) dismissed the revision petition. 8. Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Courts below have committed grave error of law. He further submits that in Claim Case No. H-104/2021 between the petitioner and legal representatives of deceased Heman Lal Yadav, a compromise in National Lok Adalat was affected and award was passed on 13.08.2022 to provide damages/compensation amounting to Rs. 3,50,000/- and the amount was already been obtained by legal representatives of deceased Heman Lal Yadav, and therefore, there is no necessity to furnish security in the light of Rule 240-A of Rules of 1994 for paying compensation arising out of claim case, since the same was already been paid. It is further contended that condition for release of vehicle was harsh and beyond the capacity of petitioner. It is further contended that condition for release of vehicle was harsh and beyond the capacity of petitioner. It is submitted by him that when compensation amount has already been paid to the petitioner as per compromise, then ends of justice would be served if sufficient surety/personal bond was taken instead of cash/cheque/bank security amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- for release of vehicle on Supurdnama. 9. Per contra, Mr. Anil Tripathi, learned Penal Lawyer representing the State submits that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was not insured and learned Courts below have taken into account the provisions of Section 240-A of the Rules of 1994 and have made pre-condition of furnishing bank security/cash/cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- the impugned order does not call for any interference. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents available in the petition. 11. Before adverting to the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, it is expedient to examine Rule 240-A of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, which is extracted below: “240-A. Prohibition on release of motor vehicle causing accident: (1) No court shall release a motor vehicle causing an accident resulting in death or bodily injury or damage to property, if such vehicle is not covered by a policy of insurance against third party risks or if the registered owner fails to furnish copy of such insurance policy despite demand by investigating police officer, unless and until the registered owner furnishes sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Court, to pay compensation that is likely to be awarded om a claim case arising out of such accident. (2) Where the motor vehicle is not covered by a policy of insurance against third party risks, or when registered owner of the motor vehicle fails to furnish a copy of such policy as per condition mentioned in sub-rule (1), the motor vehicle shall be sold off in public auction by the magistrate having jurisdiction over the area where the accident occurred, on expiry of three months of the vehicle being taken in possession by the investigating police officer, and proceeds thereof shall be deposited with the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in question, within fifteen days for the purpose of paying the amount of compensation that may have been awarded, or may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident. (3) The Claims Tribunal shall return the balance amount from the amount obtained by the public auction of the vehicle as per sub-rule (2) after paying the compensation finally decided in the claims case and after deducting the amount due to the transport department on account of the said vehicle, to the registered vehicle owner, but no interest shall be payable to the registered vehicle owner on said amount. The amount due to the transport department shall be sent to the transport department by the Claims Tribunal. (4) No Tax/Interest/Penalty shall be leviable on the vehicle from the date of taking into custody by the investigating police officer till the date of public auction of the vehicle.” 12. On bare perusal for the aforesaid rule, it is quite clear that if a motor vehicle is involved in the accident, which is not insured at the time of accident causing death or physical injury to third party, then the Court should release the vehicle unless the owner of the vehicle furnishes the sufficient security to estimate compensation. 13. Object of above Rules appears that if vehicle, involved in accident not covered by a policy of insurance and when compensation is required to be paid, in that case, victim/injured person, etc. shall get awarded amount without any hinderence. 14. Facts of the case at hand are also that offending vehicle was involved in a motor accident, offence under Section 304-A of IPC was registered and offending vehicle was seized. 15. Award dated 13.08.2022 passed by National Lok Adalat is placed on record, which shows that compromise took place in between legal representatives of deceased Heman Lal Yadav and registered owner of offending vehicle, namely, Ratiram Nishad (petitioner herein) as well as driver of offending vehicle Manglu Ram Yadav. Paragraph-4 of award would go to show that compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- was awarded in favour of legal representatives of deceased Heman Lal Yadav. Therefore, when a compensation was already ordered and amount was already received by the claimants as per condition of compromise and the object behind Rule 240-A of Rules of 1994 has been achieved, cash, bank security or bank guarantee, etc. need not be imposed for releasing of vehicle. However, if other conditions deems fit, can be imposed by the Court. 16. In that view of the matter, in the instant case, furnishing of bank security amounting to Rs. need not be imposed for releasing of vehicle. However, if other conditions deems fit, can be imposed by the Court. 16. In that view of the matter, in the instant case, furnishing of bank security amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- along with Supurdnama of Rs. 50,000/- is not required to be imposed upon the registered owner (petitioner herein). 17. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) as well as order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund (C.G.) is modified that imposing condition of furnishing a bank security of Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash or to deposit an equivalent amount towards bank security in the name of concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which is not required in the facts of the present case. It is directed that the seized Tractor bearing No. CG-06/GS/6514 (offending vehicle) be released and to be given in custody of petitioner/registered owner on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate. It is further directed that other conditions as imposed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund shall remain intact. 18. Resultantly, petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.