JUDGMENT

A. S. NAIDU, J. — 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 transporta¬tion 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 and Maruti van bearing registration number OR-O2B 8487 in favour of the petitioner who claims to be the owner of the said vehicle on the ground that the possibility of re-using 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 contra¬band articles without his knowledge and contravening the direc¬tions 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 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 prosecution, but also encourage further misuse of the vehicle.

4. Sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the N.D.P.S. (Amend¬ment) 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 conditions 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 circum¬stances and the submissions made, in the light of the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Abhay Kumar Satpathy vrs. State of Orissa, 2002 (22) OCR 362 and Angrej Singh v. State of Rajasthan, III (1992) CCR 2575 as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar vrs. State of Bihar and others, JT 2000 (8) SC 54. 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 registra¬tion 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 pro¬duced before the trial Court as and when the Court directs to do so;

(ii) the petitioner shall not transfer or dispose of the offend¬ing vehicle to any one el