JUDGMENT (ORAL) K.N. Patil, J. - These two Criminal Applications arise from an order dated 6th October 1989 passed by tI1e Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in N.U.P.S. Application No. 14 of 1989, directing that a Maruti Van bearing No. G.E.N. 1786 here turned to Munaf Mohamed Gagan on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and furnishing a surety in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount and on condition that he shall not hypothecate, deal, sell or part with the possession of the said vehicle till the disposal of the case and shall produce the same before the Court whenever required to do so. 2. On 21st January 1988, the Officers of D.R.I. intercepted the aforesaid Maruti Van when, it was driven by Hanif Gaffar Naviwala on suspicion that the said Van was carrying Narcotic drugs. On search, about 47 kgs. of Heroin powder was recovered from the said Van from the possession of Hanif Gaffar Naviwala who was the sole occupant of the Van at the time when it was intercepted. He made a confessional statement before the D.R.I. Officers and has been prosecuted for having been found in possession of the Narcotic drugs. 3. During the adjudication proceedings, the Assistant Collector of Customs (P), R . I., by a letter dated 30th June 1989 communicated that during the personal hearing conducted before CC (P) on 23rd June 1989, CC (P) passed an order that "the seized Maruti Van is ordered to be released primarily on execution of Bond to the value of Rs.60,000/-only and a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 20,000/- only". The said order releasing the Van has been made in favour of Munaf Mohamed Gagan. 4. Munaf Mohamed Gagan made an application before the Sessions Court for return of the vehicle. The application was opposed on behalf of Assistant Director, D.R.I., Bombay. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has ordered that the Van be returned to the applicant-Munaf Mohamed Gagan on the conditions mentioned above. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bombay; challenges the said order in Criminal Application No. 2560 of 1989. The applicant-Munaf Mohamed Gagan has filed Criminal Application No. 3055 of 1989 because of the interim order of stay which was obtained by the D.R.I. in their Criminal Application. 5. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bombay; challenges the said order in Criminal Application No. 2560 of 1989. The applicant-Munaf Mohamed Gagan has filed Criminal Application No. 3055 of 1989 because of the interim order of stay which was obtained by the D.R.I. in their Criminal Application. 5. Shri Irani, learned Advocate appearing for Munaf Mohamed Gagan, argued that Munaf Mohamed Gagan is a registered owner of the vehicle and had no knowledge that the vehicle was used by Manif Gaffar Naviwala for transporting Narcotic drugs. The vehicle is lying in a compound of the Directorate's Office and if it is not used and exposed to sun and light, its value will be considerably reduced by the time the trial is concluded and in case the Court orders that the vehicle should not be returned to its owner, he being the owner of the vehicle would be put to irreparable loss. The Trial Court has exercised its discretion in returning the vehicle subject to the stringent conditions and the owner will undertake to produce the vehicle whenever he is directed to do so before the Court and there are also conditions imposed on him that he should not dispose of the vehicle in any manner which would safeguard the interests of the Directorate. Shri Irani also pointed out that the Collector of Customs (P) on personal hearing and ordered that the vehicle should be returned to the owner Munaf Mohamed Gagan on his executing a bond of Rs. 60,000/- and a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 20,000/- which would prima facie show that the authority was convinced that the vehicle may not be required to be seized. 6. Shri Gupte, learned Advocate appearing for the Directorate, argued that Hanif Gaffar Naviwala and Munaf Mohamed Gagan are partners in business. Munaf Mohamed Gagan purchased the vehicle from one Banubai and funds were supplied to him by one Batatawalla who has been discharged in these proceedings. He suggested that Munaf Mohamed Gagan has managed to get his name entered as a registered owner and Banubai' s statement shows that she has sold it to him for a nominal price. If the vehicle is returned, then there is possibility that the applicant-Munaf Mohamed Gagan may not produce it before the Court and the order of confiscation would become in fructuous. If the vehicle is returned, then there is possibility that the applicant-Munaf Mohamed Gagan may not produce it before the Court and the order of confiscation would become in fructuous. He has also argued that Hanif Gaffar Naviwala has an interest in the vehicle and it will not be proper to return the vehicle to the applicant-Gagan. The Directorate will take proper care to maintain the vehicle till it remains ill their custody and the applicant-Gagan will not be put to any loss. 7. Shri Shaikh, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 - Hanif Gaffar Naviwala, makes a statement that his client has no interest in the vehicle. 8. There is sufficient material at this stage to show that the vehicle was intercepted by the D.R.I Officers on 21st January 1988 and on search about 47 kgs. of Heroin powder was recovered from it. Hanif Gaffar Naviwala was the sole occupant of the vehicle when it was intercepted and admitted the applicant Munaf Mohamed Gagan was not present in the vehicle. In the absence of sufficient evidence to indicate that the applicant Gagan who is the registered owner of the vehicle had knowledge that the vehicle was likely to be used for carrying contraband, he would be entitled to keep the vehicle till the conclusion of the trial. The Directorate has no facilities of maintenance of the vehicle. The applicant-Gagan being the owner would be interested in maintaining the vehicle. There is substance in the contention of Shri Irani that if the vehicle is allowed to remain in the compound of the Directorate for a longer time, it will be badly damaged as it would be exposed to sun and light and may ultimately reduce to junk as the trial may take a long time. The interest of the Directorate can be protected by imposing suitable conditions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, taking into consideration over-all facts of the case and the interests of the parties and the balance of convenience, has exercised his discretion in ordering that the vehicle should be returned to the applicant-Munaf Mohamed Gagan on the conditions mentioned above and I do not find compelling grounds to interfere with the discretionary order which, in my opinion, is in the interest of both the parties. 9. 9. Shri Gupta for the Directorate invited my attention to the second proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 63 of the N.U.P.S. Act, 1985, which states that if any such article or thing other than a narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, the opium poppy, coca plant or cannabis plant, is liable to speedy and natural decay, of the Court is of opinion that its sale would be for the benefit of its owner, it may at any time direct it to be sold. He argued that in view of the contention of the applicant-Gagan that the vehicle may be decayed speedily, the Court may order sale of the vehicle. I do not think that the said proviso is applicable to the vehicle and in any case, in my opinion, its sale would not be for the benefit of its owner. I am, therefore, unable to accept the submission of Shri Gupta that the vehicle should be sold under Section 63 (2) of the N.U.P.S. Act. 10. The applicant-Munaf Mohamed Gagan stays at Ahmedabad and it will be difficult for the Directorate to keep a watch on the vehicle. It is, therefore, directed that the applicant-Munaf Mohamed Gagan should report to the Court every quarter and state on an affidavit that the possession of the vehicle is with him as owner and he is personally using it. It is made clear that he shall take all precautions to see that the vehicle is not put to any illegal use which may result in cancellation of the bond and immediate seizure of the vehicle by the Court. The bond shall include this condition also in addition to the other conditions, which have already been stipulated in the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. 11. Subject to the above directions, Rule in Criminal Application No. 2560 of 1989 is discharged and Rule in Criminal Application No. 3055 of 1989 is made absolute. Order accordingly.