Hon’ble Kalimullah Khan, J.—This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Samarjeet Singh applicant/revisionist challenging the correctness, legality and propriety of impugned order dated 1.4.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Fatehpur, in Criminal Case No. 12/2014 under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station-Aung, District-Fatehpur, whereby he has rejected his application made for release of his truck in his favour.

2. None turned up for the revisionist even in the revised list being called upon. The revision has yet not been admitted. The criminal revision cannot be dismissed in default for non prosecution. It must be decided on merit. Therefore, heard learned A.G.A. and perused the materials available including the impugned order.

3. It appears that the applicant/revisionist is the owner of the Truck No. U.P.78 CN 3311 which is detained within the campus of Police Station-Aung, District-Fatehpur.

According to the prosecution case, Fifteen kg and Five hundred gm Ganja was recovered from the aforesaid truck on 8.3.2014 at 22:50 p.m. on the Highway situated in the limits of Godhrauli, P.S.-Aung, District-Fatehpur. The narcotics and the truck both were seized by the Police. The applicant/revisionist is not an accused in the crime case registered under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act for the recovery of the aforesaid narcotics.

4. He made an application with the prayer to release the aforesaid vehicle in his favour on appropriate conditions. It was opposed by learned A.D.G.C. (criminal) vide impugned order dated 1.4.2014. The said release application was rejected by the learned trial Court on following grounds :

(i) That the aforesaid truck is a case property.

(ii) That Ranjeet Singh, the real brother of the applicant and other co-accused persons were carrying the Ganja in the said truck and there is no evidence that the aforesaid narcotics were transported in the truck of the applicant without his knowledge.

Feeling aggrieved this criminal revision has been preferred.

5. Learned A.G.A. has conceded that under Sections 457, 451 and 452 Cr.P.C., it is the case property which is released. Section 457 Cr.P.C. is attracted during investigation; Section 451 Cr.P.C. is attracted during inquiry and trial whereas Section 452 Cr.P.C. is applicable at the conclusion of the trial.

6. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that release application was rejected during the course of investigation. Certainly therefore, the provision contained under Section 457 Cr.P.C. comes into play and the case property itself may be released in favour of a person entitled to the possession thereof. No person is better entitled than the true owner of the case property. Undisputedly, applicant/revisionist is the registered owner of the aforesaid truck. He is the best person entitled to the possession thereof.

7. Ranjeet Singh, the brother of the applicant is accused alongwith some co-accused in the case. But the applicant is not an accused. He was not arrested at spot. There is no evidence that it was in his knowledge that the narcotics were being carried in his truck by his brother and other co-accused. He contended in his application that he had got loaded iron-sheets in his truck in Orissa and it was being transported to Kanpur. In the way within the limits of district-Fatehpur, the aforesaid recovery of the narcotics was allegedly made for which he cannot be made liable as knowledge cannot be imputed to him.

8. In Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the guidelines for the release of vehicles, valuable articles and currency notes and held that the Court may follow the procedure provided under Section 451 Cr.P.C. (or 457 Cr.P.C.) while releasing the vehicle in favour of the person entitled to possession thereof. The bond and security should be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. The Court should see that photographs