JUDGMENT Poonam Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Sri Vinod Prakash Advocate for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. On the agreement between the parties, this application is finally heard.
2. This is an application challenging the order dated 1.7.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi in a Misc. Application No, Nil of 2005 in a case, State v. Mangal Singh, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A, 427 I.P.C. read with Section 179 of "the Motor Vehicle Act, Police Station Nababad, District Jhansi, arising out of case Crime No. 1224 of 2005. The learned Magistrate has refused to release the vehicle No. DLP 5240 in favour of the applicant. The vehicle was registered in the name of Smt. Kapoori Devi, wife of Gauri Shanker Agarwal. A carriage permit No. PHTP 55/68 was issued in respect of the vehicle which is a bus of 1992 model. Smt. Kapoori Devi was grandmother of the applicant. Smt. Kapoori Devi died and all the family members had agreed amongst themselves that the vehicle be transferred in the name of the applicant. Affidavits were filed in favour of the applicant by the family members which was in form of a no objection/consent for transfer of permit. The affidavits have been annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit. However, the vehicle met an accident on 19.6.2005 in respect of which a first information report was registered at case Crime No. 1224 of 2005. The applicant applied for release of the vehicle vide application dated 21.6.2005 which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit. A report was called for in respect of the vehicle under the orders of the District Magistrate/ Collector, Jhansi regarding actual and legal heir of Smt. Kapoori Devi. Tehsildar inquired into the matter and submitted a report. Annexure-4 is a letter issued by the District Magistrate, Jhansi to the Secretary U.P.S.R.T.C. apprising him that the Tehsildar has submitted a report on 3.6.2005 that the permit PHTP 55/86 STA State/96 and vehicle No. DLIP No. 5240 Model 1992 is to be transferred in the name of the present applicant. The vehicle was also being run under his supervision. The report of the Tehsildar was appended to the letter of the District Magistrate. All these documents were brought on record More the CM Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi and he was also apprised of the fact that on the basis of no objection issued by other heirs of late Srnt. Kapoori Devi, permit of the vehicle stood transferred in the name of the applicant. The tax receipts of the vehicle were also submitted in the name of the applicant but the learned Magistrate rejected the application vide order dated 1.7.2005 for the reason that there are six children of late Smt. Kapoori Devi and the registration is not in the name of the applicant, he can not be said to be the sole owner of the vehicle. Accordingly he refused to release it in his favour, hence this application.
3. I have gone through the record as well as the impugned order. The Apex Court, in the case of Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Guirat 2003 (46) A.C.C. 223 has clearly held that the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes:- (i) Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused,(ii) Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody, (iii) If the proper panchnama before handing over article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial, if necessary, (iv) 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. The Apex Court has clearly held that appropriate orders should be passed immediately because keeping it at police station for a long period would only result in decay of the article. The court should ensure that the article will be produced if and when required by taking bond, guarantee or security. Similar view has been followed in a number of decisions of this Court as well. Mohd. Shamim Khan v. State of U.P., 2004, A.C.C. (48). 605. In the case of Tulsi Rajak v. State of Jharkhand, 2004, Criminal Law Journal. 2450, it was held that truck lying in the police station for more than one year resulted in heavy loss of the petitioner and in the circumstances, the High Court permitted to release of the vehicle. In Gurnam Singh and Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal, 2003 (47) A.C.C 1086, it was held that what so ever the situation be, there is no use to keep the seized vehicle at the police station or court campus for a long period, the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time. In the instant case, the counsel for the applicant has brought to my notice that two wheels of the standing bus has been removed by someone and in the event, the vehicle is not released, each and every part will go one by one but for the metallic frame of the bus. The admitted position in the present case is that all the heirs of the actual owners in whose name the vehicle was registered, have filed their affidavits/ no objection certificate. The District Magistrate has also got the matter enquired through the Tehsildar and informed the UPSRTC as such it is evident that the learned Magistrate should have released the bus after taking appropriate precaution in form of bonds or security. The Magistrate committed a gross error in rejecting the application, even though all the documents were produced before him including fact was brought to the notice that the permit stands transferred in the name of the present applicant.
4. After taking the entire matter into consideration, I come to the conclusion that the order of the Magistrate dated 1.7.2005 can not be left to stand. No good reason has been assigned for refusing the prayer for release of the bus. Accordingly, the order dated 1.7.2005 is quashed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi is directed to release the bus within a period of one week from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before him after taking adequate guarantee/ security of the bus from the applicant Rajiv Agarwal.
5. For the reasons discussed above, this application is finally allowed.