HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2784 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 28.03.2024 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Hathras in Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2022, under Section 72(7) of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, as well as the order dated 10.06.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Hathras, under Section 72 of U.P. Excise Act in Case No. 376 of 2020 (Computer Case No. D202018340000376), arising out of Case Crime No. 39 of 2020, P.S. Hasayan, District-Hathras. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the vehicle in question, bearing no. UP-86 T7609 has been seized by the police authorities in Case Crime No. 39 of 2020, under Sections 60 and 72 of U.P. Excise Act. Against the seizer of the said vehicle the revisionist represented before opposite party no. 2 / District Magistrate, Hathras, then the District Magistrate, Hathras after hearing the revisionist passed an order dated 10.06.2022 rejected the application moved for release of the vehicle, seized under Section 72 of U.P. Excise Act in another case bearing Case No. 376 of 2020 (Computer Case No. D202018340000376), arising out of Case Crime No. 0039 of 2020, Police Station Hasayan, District Hathras. Thereafter, the present revision has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is the owner of the vehicle. The value of the said vehicle is deprecating everyday and stand to put in disuse. If the said vehicle is in running condition, then it must be used for fruitful purpose. If the said vehicle is kept in the custody of police station or administrative authorities, no useful purpose would be served. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2003 46 ACC 223. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the revisionist may dispose to the vehicle and therefore, likely to destroy the evidence, Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Devesh Kumar Shukla, Dharmesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pappu .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) which is valuable in respect of the case crime number and the offence committed by the revisionist. 6. Since the vehicle has been kept in the custody at the police station in respect of the said crime and the value of the vehicle is depreciating everyday, therefore, in the interest of justice the vehicle be released in accordance with the Rules. 7. The order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Hathras in Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2022, under Section 72(7) of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, as well as the order dated 10.06.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Hathras, under Section 72 of U.P. Excise Act in Case No. 376 of 2020 (Computer Case No. D202018340000376), arising out of Case Crime No. 39 of 2020, P.S. Hasayan, District-Hathras are hereby set aside. 8. The District Magistrate, Hathras is hereby directed to release the vehicle in question forthwith by stipulating reasonable conditions those are appropriate in procuring the evidence and may further direct the owner of the vehicle that he will not dispose of or destroy the vehicle in any manner whatsoever. 9. With the aforesaid direction the instant revision is allowed. September 11, 2025 Faridul CRLR No. 2784 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad