JUDGMENT :

S. K. SAHOO, J.

1. The petitioner Kishore Kumar Choudhury has filed this revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 13.01.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.9 of 2016 which arises out of G.R. Case No.79 of 2016 of the learned Special Judge, Phulbani corresponding to Phiringia P.S. Case No.84 dated 30.06.2016 in rejecting the petition under section 457 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for release of his white colour Toyota ETIOS bearing Registration No.OD-02V-0053.

2. Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case was instituted on 30.06.2016 on the basis of the first information report lodged by one Dhiren Kumar Behera, officer in charge, Phiringia Police Station against six accused persons namely Sagar Swain, Haribandhu Kanhar, Pratap Kumar Swain, Jagadish Sahani, Santosh Kumar Jena and Subash Chandra Chandan which was registered under sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and in connection with such offence, the vehicle of the petitioner was seized on 30.06.2016.

3. The petition under section 457 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani on the ground that though there was no quarrel that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle but section 60(3) of the N.D.P.S. Act provides that a conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug is liable for confiscation, unless the owner proves that it was used without his knowledge or connivance or of his agent or the person in charge of the conveyance and that each of them had taken reasonable precaution against such use. It was further held that whether or not the petitioner had knowledge of the conveyance for being used for transporting the narcotic drug and whether he had taken precaution against such use is a matter to be decided during the trial of the case and since the vehicle was found carrying contraband ganja and the petitioner had not furnished any material to indicate that the vehicle was being used as a taxi for hire and that accused Jagadish Sahani was engaged as a driver for the petitioner, therefore, the Court held there was no prima facie material on record to show that the petitioner had no knowledge of the conveyance being used for transportation of the narcotic drugs and accordingly, the petition under section 457 of Cr.P.C. was rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after the seizure of the vehicle since 30.06.2016, the vehicle is lying in an unattended condition in the Phiringia Police Station premises in open air being exposed to sun and rain and the condition of the vehicle is likely to be deteriorated and since there is no bar under the N.D.P.S. Act for interim release of the vehicle and confiscation, if any, in terms of section 60(3) of the N.D.P.S. Act may be done only after the conclusion of trial, therefore, unless the seized vehicle is released in favour of the petitioner, he will be seriously prejudiced particularly when the petitioner is not an accused in the case. In support of such contentions the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the cases of Basanta Kumar Behera Vs. State of Orissa reported in (2013) 54 Orissa Criminal Reports 876, Balabhadra Nayak Vs. State of Orissa reported in (2013) 54 Orissa Criminal Reports 893 and Subash Chandra Panda Vs. State of Orissa reported in (2009) 44 Orissa Criminal Reports 859.

5. In the case of Subash Chandra Panda (supra), this Court after analyzing the relevant provision under section 60 of the N.D.P.S. Act and provisions under sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. has been pleased to hold as follows:-

“4. Taking into consideration the stage of confiscation of a vehicle or conveyance and protection of an innocent owner in the provision of the Act itself, as discussed supra, the obvious question that arises for consideration is as to whether an innocent owner of a vehicle or conveyance shall be made to suf