POONAM SRIVASTAV, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
(2.) THE instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 13.7.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Azamgarh in Sessions Trial No. 633 of 2008-State Vs. Ramjeet and others, arising out of case crime No. 249 of 2008. under Sections 302 I.P.C., Police Station Jahanaganj, District Azamgarh, whereby release of the vehicle alleged to be involved in the said crime has been refused. The submission is that the revisionist had applied for registration vide Chassis No. 82C22721, Engine No. G.A. 84C 16849. A sale deed was also produced before the court below to substantiate that this vehicle was purchased on 27.3.2008 and the same was duly insured. The vehicle is standing at Police Station Jahanaganj in connection with a murder case and the trial is in progress. The revisionist is an accused in the said crime and the release of the vehicle has been refused. The vehicle was not used in the commission of alleged offence. The revisionist has been granted bail by the court below on 21.7.2008. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and also considered the submission that the vehicle is standing at the Police Station and it will be destroyed in due course. There is no one to take care of the said vehicle which is case property in Session Trial No. 633 of 2008.
(3.) I have gone through the record as well as the impugned order. The Apex Court, in the case of Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat, 2003 (46) A.C.C. 223 has clearly held that the powers under Section 457 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 Vs. State of U.P., 2004, A.C.C. (48), 605. In the case of Tulsi Rajak Vs. 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 another Vs. 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.;