JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for revisionist Sri Ghaus Beg, learned AGA and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for revisionist submitted that he inadvertently impleaded Judicial Magistrate in the array of opposite party and learned counsel for revisionist submitted that he want to delete the opposite party no.1 Judicial Magistrate-III. Submission of learned counsel for revisionist is hereby allowed and it is directed to delete the same. 3. This Criminal Revision has been preferred u/s 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against the impugned order dated 21.1.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-III, Lucknow, whereby without assigning any cogent reason the learned trial court has rejected the application dated 24.1.2020. Being aggrieved with impugned order dated 24.1.2020 this revision preferred by the revisionist in respect of release of vehicle bearing registration no. UP-32/CN5543 (Bus). 4. Learned counsel for revisionist submitted that revisionist is the registered owner of vehicle no. UP-32/CN5543 (Bus). On 18.10.2019 the above mentioned vehicle met with an accident near Purniya Chaurah under P.S. Madiyaon, Lucknow with motor cycle bearing registration no. UP32-KR-1795. In the said incident no one has got injury. However, the said motor cycle was partially damaged. In this behalf, Sri Krishan Kant Kushwaha lodged FIR on 18.10.2019 against unknown person as a Case Crime No. 947/2019 u/s 279, 337, 427 IPC, P.S. Madiyaon, Lucknow which is annexed as Annexure No. 4. The vehicle of the revisionist was seized and detained at P.S. Madiyaon on 18.10.2019. 5. The revisionist preferred the application on 27.1.2020 before ACJM, IV, Lucknow for release of the vehicle but the Magistrate concerned vide the order dated 5.3.2020 rejected the said release application on flimsy grounds in an illegal and arbitrary manner by stating that accused of this crime failed to surrender before the court and the license of the driver is not duly verified. 6. Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 5.3.2020 passed by learned Magistrate the revisionist preferred the Revision No. 204/2020 on 17.8.2020. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow allowed the said revision and set aside the order dated 5.3.2020 and remanded the matter to the learned trial court with direction to consider the release application. 6. Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 5.3.2020 passed by learned Magistrate the revisionist preferred the Revision No. 204/2020 on 17.8.2020. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow allowed the said revision and set aside the order dated 5.3.2020 and remanded the matter to the learned trial court with direction to consider the release application. After hearing the parties the revisional court passed the order dated 15.12.2021 in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V/s State of Gujarat, AIR 2003, Supreme Court, Page No. 638 which is annexed as Annexure No. 8. 7. The relevant portion of which is being reproduced hereunder: "In our view, whatever be the situation it is of no use to keep seized vehicle at the police stations for a long period so it is for the magistrate to pass appropriate order immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security return of the said vehicle at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of application for return of such vehicle. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle could be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared. However those powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under section 451 CrPC are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case for not more than fifteen days to one month." 8. In pursuance of order dated 15.12.2021 passed by learned Revisional Court, revisionist approached before the Judicial Magistrate-III and again moved the application in the light of the direction given by the learned Revisional Court. But the learned Magistrate rejected the release application dated 21.1.2003 without considering the direction given by learned Revisional Court to consider the release application of the revisionist as law propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V/s State of Gujarat (Supra). 9. But the learned Magistrate rejected the release application dated 21.1.2003 without considering the direction given by learned Revisional Court to consider the release application of the revisionist as law propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V/s State of Gujarat (Supra). 9. Order dated 21.1.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, III, Lucknow reads as under: ^^U;k;ky; U;kf;d eftLVsªV r`rh;] y[kuÅA eqtrck vyh [kk cuke ljdkj eqŒvŒlaŒ 947@2019 /kkjk&279] 337] 427 vkbZŒihŒlhŒ Fkkuk efM+;ko] tuin y[kuÅ fnukad 21&01&23 izkFkZuk i= okLrs fjyht fd;s tkus okgu laŒ ;wŒihŒ32&lhŒ,uŒ&5543] izkFkhZ eqtrck vyh [kka dh vksj ls izLrqr djrs gq, dFku fd;k x;k gS fd og mijksDr okgu dh iathd`r Lokeh gSA mijksDr okgu eqŒvŒlŒ 947@19 es fyf[kr :i ls ntZ gSA vr% mDr okgu dks mlds i{k esa voeqDr fd;s tkus dh d`ik dh xbZ gSA mijkssDr izkFkZuk i= ij izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ,oa fo}ku vfHk;kstu vf/kdkjh dks lquk ,oa vfHk;kstu vk[;k ,oa Fkkus ls izkIr vk[;k dk voyksdu fd;kA lgk;d vfHk;kstu vf/kdkjh dh vk[;k ds vuqlkj MhŒ,yŒ o iY;w'ku dk lR;kiu gksuk 'ks”k gSA vkosnd dk voeqDr izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;s tksus ;ksX; ugha gSA Fkkus ls izkIr vk[;kuqlkj okgu izkbosV cl laŒ;wŒihŒ&32&lhŒ,uŒ5543 eqŒvŒlaŒ947@2019 /kkjk 279] 337] 427 vkbZŒihŒlhŒ Fkkuk efM;kao ds vfHk;ksx ls lacf/kr gSA mDr okgu Fkkus ds eky[kkus esa nkf[ky gSA vr% ekeys ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"VxRk j[krs gq;s vkosnd dk voeqDr izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA vkns'k rnuqlkj vkosnu@izkFkhZ eqtrck vyh [kka dk izkFkZuk i= okLrs voeqDr fd;s tkus okgu izkbosV cl laŒ;wŒihŒ 32&lhŒ,uŒ&5543 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 10. Thus, learned counsel for revisionist submitted that it is the settled law of the land that it is of no use to keep the seized vehicle at police station for a long period and it was directed to the Magistrate to release the above vehicle after taking sufficient guarantee/surety. Even, that learned trial court did not consider the provisions enshrined in Section 451 CrPC and due to impugned order dated 21.1.2023 the vehicle of revisionist is unnecessary kept in police custody for about approximately 3 years and 6 months. Thus the revisionist suffer irreparable loss and he prayed that his revision to be allowed. 11. Learned AGA vehemently opposed and submitted that this is the case of property. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. Thus the revisionist suffer irreparable loss and he prayed that his revision to be allowed. 11. Learned AGA vehemently opposed and submitted that this is the case of property. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. "Section 451 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as under: Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any 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" 13. On perusal of the order of learned Judicial Magistrate dated 21.1.2023, learned Magistrate rejected the release application without assigning any reason in very cursory manner. It was the bounden duty of Magistrate to follow the direction issued by the revisional court vide order dated 15.12.2021 but the Magistrate fail to follow the order of revisional court. Learned Revisional Court in his findings dated 15.12.2021 clearly gave direction to the learned trial court that verification of license of driver is not required in this case and the revisionist is agree to compensate the victim adequately and clearly indicated that due to passage of time the seized vehicle became deteriorated. 14. This fact is undisputed that the chargesheet has already been filed before the trial court, so, in these circumstances, learned trial court without application of judicial mind wrongly rejected the release application. Even the learned trial court did not bother to follow the direction issued by revisional court and the learned trial court neither read the Section 451 of CrPC nor follow the dictim of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra). 15. It is clear that the revisionist is entitled to the possession of above vehicle. Even the learned trial court did not bother to follow the direction issued by revisional court and the learned trial court neither read the Section 451 of CrPC nor follow the dictim of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra). 15. It is clear that the revisionist is entitled to the possession of above vehicle. This seized vehicle is related to the accident matter and only on the basis of the pollution certificate or verification of license of driver the release of the vehicle could not be denied. Learned Magistrate has no power to enquire about validity of license of driver and pollution certificate as Magistrate is not a police officer or officer of the transport department. 16. In this matter, it is also desirable that the production of vehicle is not inevitable. In General Insurance Council v/s State of AP 2010 (6) SCC Hon'ble Apex Court held that the production of the vehicle is not necessary during trial and the photograph of the vehicle would be sufficient to be proved in evidence and the learned Apex Court directed to release the vehicle immediate forthwith. 17. The purpose of revisional jurisdiction is to examine the correctness or propriety of order. It is indicated that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is non speaking without application of judicial mind and without reading the relevant provisions as well as Apex Court law. Order passed by the learned Magistrate is cryptic and this practice is highly deprecated. Conduct of the learned Magistrate is against the Judicial Propriety and it amounts to contempt also. 18. Learned Magistrate is hereby warned in future to pass the order in accordance with law. 19. Consequently, the revision is hereby allowed. 20. Thus, in above discussion I quash the impugned order dated 21.1.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate-III and court concerned is directed to release the above vehicle in favour of the revisionist forthwith after taking proper surety. 21. Senior Registrar of this Court is hereby directed to communicate the order of this Court to learned Judicial Magistrate, III, Lucknow through District Judge Lucknow. It is also directed to District Judge, Lucknow to keep vigil against the officer concerned. 22. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is disposed of.