ORDER
A.S. Naidu, J.
1. The dispute centres round as to whether during the pendency of a proceeding under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) of the N.D.P.S. (Amendment) Act, a vehicle involved in transportation of contraband articles can be released in favour of the owner under Section 457, Cr. P.C.
2. By the impugned order dated 13-12-2002, the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in 2(a) CC No. 4 of 2002 declined to release a Maruti Van bearing registration number OR-02B 8487 in favour of the petitioner who claims to be the owner of the said vehicle on the ground that the possibility of reusing the vehicle again for transporting the contraband articles cannot be ruled out. Admittedly the said vehicle was caught red-handed when transporting Ganja.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle was used for the purpose of transporting the contraband articles without his knowledge and contravening the directions issued by him. It is further forcefully submitted that if the vehicle is released in his favour, he would undertake to maintain the same in proper condition and produce the same as and when required and would abide by the final decision of the proceeding. At the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the said submission and contended that in consonance with the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the vehicle in question is liable to be confiscated to the State and if the same is released during the pendency of the trial, it would not only cause great prejudice to the provisions, but also encourage further misuse of the vehicle.
4. Sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the N.D.P.S. (Amendment) Act specifically stipulates that any article or vehicle used for the purpose of commission of an offence under the said Act is liable for confiscation. In other words, the said article or vehicle must be before the Court at the time of trial and also at the end of the trial for the purpose of passing necessary orders. But then, the vehicle in which the contraband articles were transported should be kept in safe custody, so that when the same is confiscated and put to auction, that would fetch maximum price. If the vehicle is, however, allowed to remain at the police station without any care and subjected to rain and sun, its condition will deteriorate and even if at the end of the trial an order of confiscation is passed, the same would not be beneficial to the State. Thus, according to me, what is required during the pendency of the trial is to make adequate arrangement for maintenance of the vehicle which would be kept in proper condition and ensure its production in course of trial, as and when required and/or at the end of the trial if the Court so requires.
5. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the submissions made, in the light of the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Abhay Kumar Satpathy v. State of Orissa, 2002 (22) OCR 362 and Angrej Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1992) 3 CCR 2575 as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar (2000) 8 JT (SC) 54 : (2001 AIR SCW 2314) in the interest of the parties, while setting aside the impugned order, I direct that :
(i) The trial Court shall examine the documents produced by the petitioner and if it will be satisfied that the petitioner is the owner, shall release the Maruti Van in question bearing registration number OR 02B-8487 in favour of the petitioner for an interim period subject to the condition that he furnishes cash security of Rs. 20,000/-(Twenty thousand), property security to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- (Seventy five thousand) and two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and with the condition that the offending vehicle shall be produced before the trial Court as and when the Court directs to do so;
(ii) the petitioner shall not transfer or dispose of the offending vehicle to any one else and shall not make any change in its body, colour or engine. It is needless to say that make, colour, chassis number, and engine number of the offending vehicle shall be furnished by the petitioner before the trial Court with an undertaking that no damage shall be caused or no part of the vehicle be substituted;
(iii) the petitioner shall also file an undertaking before the trial Court that the offending vehicle shall not be used for commission of any offence; and
(iv) before giving interim custody of the offending vehicle to the petitioner, three coloured photographs of cabinet size from different angles clearly indicating registration number and other particulars of the vehicle shall be kept on file. The expenses for the photographs shall be borne by the petitioner.
6. On furnishing the aforesaid documents, the Maruti Van in question shall be released in favour of the petitioner for an interim period subject to final decision of the case. It is made clear that in case of any allegation regarding involvement of the Maruti Van in question in any criminal activity or in transportation of any objectionable articles, the order as to interim release of the vehicle shall stand automatically revoked and the trial Court shall have the authority to take necessary steps for seizure of the vehicle.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the criminal revision is disposed of.