JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition u\s. 482 Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order dated 20.5.93 of Addl. Sessions Judge, Chabra, whereby he refused the application of petitioner praying for Supurdaginama of Truck No. RJ 20/G-0533. 2. On intervening night of 11th and 12th April, 1993, the Station House officer, Police Station Chhipa Barod stopped the truck No. RJ 20/G.0533 which was on its way to Bonded Ware-house. On search, 30 bags of lanced poppy heads were found in the truck. Apart from Mishri Lal, cleaner two other labourers Satya Narain and Aslam were travelling in the truck. The poppy heads as also the truck was seized by the police. The three occupants were also arrested. FIR No.85/93, under Section 8/18 NDPS Act was registered. The accused persons found in truck were released and thereafter, the petitioner moved the application under Section 457 Criminal Procedure Code before learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chabra requesting the learned Magistrate to release the custody of the truck. The application of the petitioner was rejected. Thereafter, he carried the matter before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chabra. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has also upheld the view taken by the learned Magistrate on the ground that when the fact is not in dispute, that poppy heads were being carried by the truck in question and the matter is under investigation. Therefore, the release of truck is not justified and he rejected the appeal of the petitioner. 3. Being dissatisfied with the orders of the courts below, the petitioner has filed this misc. petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that assuming that the truck was involved in the offence and poppy heads were being carried by this truck, but, when no purpose will be served by retaining the truck in police custody, the truck should be released. For that, he relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Angrej Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1992 Vol. III CCR 2575) . In the case referred above, also referred the observations of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. For that, he relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Angrej Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1992 Vol. III CCR 2575) . In the case referred above, also referred the observations of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 544/87 (Balvinder Singh v. State ) and the relevant portion also has referred in that judgment, for ready reference, the relevant portion reads as under:- "No doubt after the amendment in the Act, truck or a vehicle in which the opium or other some commodity is transported is liable to be confiscated but for passing of such an order, it is necessary to make arrangements for the safe custody of the vehicle. It it is allowed to remain in the open place at Police Station then no one will take care of it and the condition shall deteriorate even if it is ordered to be confiscated. What is required during the pendency of the trial is to make arrangement that the truck remains in the present condition and is produced before the Court as and when it is called for." 5. In view of the judgment referred above, I do not find any reason to depart from the view taken by this Court in the cases referred above. Hence, it is directed that the vehicle mentioned above be released on supurdaginama to the petitioner on the following conditions:- (i) he shall furnish a personal security in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Two lacs and fifty thousand) and two sureties in the sum of the Rs. 1,25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the condition that the vehicle shall be produced in Court as and when required to do so; (ii) he shall not transfer or otherwise dispose of the vehicle to anyone else and also shall not make any change in its body or colour till further orders; (iii) he shall submit a photostat copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle in the Trial Court; (iv) he shall also file an undertaking in the Trial Court that the vehicle shall not be used for commission of any offence; (v) before giving the custody of the vehicle three coloured photographs of cabinet size from different angles showing the registration number shall be kept in the file of the case. The expense of the photographs shall be borne by the petitioner. The expense of the photographs shall be borne by the petitioner. In the result, the petition is allowed. Petition allowed. *******