JUDGMENT R. N. BISWAL, J. — The order dated 2.11.2004 passed by the Special Judge, Angul in Special Case No.1 of 2004 wherein he rejected the petition filed under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. for release of the Mini-bus bearing Registration No.OR-06-E-8188 in favour of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid Bus. He was plying it as stage carriage from Bagadia to Cuttack and back. On 16.10.2004 receiving a telephonic message that Tankadhar Biswal and Anchal Majhi were transporting Ganja in the aforesaid bus, the O.I.C. of Chhendipada Police Station with his staff in presence of the local Tahasildar stopped the bus near the Police Station. On search some Ganja was recovered from possession of accused Tankadhar Biswal and Anchal Majhi who were moving in that bus. As they were not backed by any authority for such posses¬sion, the same was seized and F.I.R. was lodged against them on the allegation that they committed offence under Section 20 (b) of the N.D.P.S. Act (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), giving rise to the aforesaid Special case. As per the allegation since the Ganja was being carried in the bus in question, the O.I.C. Chhen¬dipada Police Station seized it also. Under such circumstances, the petitioner claiming himself to be the owner of the bus filed a petition under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. for interim release of the said bus in his favour before the Special Judge, Angul. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State the learned Special Judge rejected the petition holding that the vehicle was liable to be confiscated under Section 60(3) of the Act. Being aggrieved with this order the petitioner has preferred this revision as mentioned earlier. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not in the bus while it was intercepted and the contraband articles were seized from the above accused persons. Neither the staff of the bus nor the petitioner has been arrayed as accused in the case. Since the bus is lying at Chhendipada Police Station being exposed to the elements of nature its condition would deteriorate if it is allowed to be kept there any further. So he pressed to allow the revision. 5. As against this, the learned Addl. Since the bus is lying at Chhendipada Police Station being exposed to the elements of nature its condition would deteriorate if it is allowed to be kept there any further. So he pressed to allow the revision. 5. As against this, the learned Addl. Standing counsel submits that even if the petitioner and the staff of the bus are not arrayed as accused in the case, as per the provision of Section 60(3) of the Act the same is liable for confiscation. So the revision should not be allowed. Section 60(3) of the Act reads as follows :- “60(3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narco¬tic drug or psychotropic substance, or any article liable to confiscation under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) shall be liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the animal or con¬veyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person-in-charge of the animal or conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use.” In the present case as per the petition under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. of the petitioner the Ganja alleged to have been carried in his bus was without his knowledge or connivance. His staff had also no knowledge or connivance for such transportation as al¬leged. It is also not possible on part of the staff of the bus to search the luggage of each of the passengers to find out if any contraband article is being carried by him. As mentioned earlier neither the petitioner nor the staff of his bus was made accused in the aforesaid case. Still then at this stage it cannot be said that the vehicle cannot be confiscated. If the vehicle is found to be liable for confiscation to the State it will fetch more price, if it is in good condition. On the other hand, if the condition of the vehicle is deteriorated, then it would fetch less price. In that case the State would not be gainer. If it is released in favour of the petitioner with direction to keep it in good running condition and after conclu¬sion of the trial it is confiscated to the State then it would fetch much price whereby the State would be gainer. In that case the State would not be gainer. If it is released in favour of the petitioner with direction to keep it in good running condition and after conclu¬sion of the trial it is confiscated to the State then it would fetch much price whereby the State would be gainer. So, it is ordered that the vehicle shall be released in favour of the petitioner on furnishing property security of Rs.3,00,000/- (three lakhs) on the following conditions: 1) he will keep it in good running condition; 2) he shall not transfer the ownership of it; 3) he shall not change the registration, chassis and Engine number and colour of the bus in any manner; 4) four photographs of the bus from four different sides shall be taken at the cost of the petitioner and kept in Court; and 5) he shall produce the bus in question before the trial Court as and when required. Accordingly the Revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Revision allowed