ORDER 1. The petitioner/accused has filed the instant criminal revision petition as against the order dated 19.11.2012 in Cr. M.P. No. 2934 of 2012 passed by the learned Principal Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai. 2. The learned Principal Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, while passing the order in Cr. M.P. No. 2934 of 2012 on 19.11.2012 has among other things observed that “.... Because the property seized from the accused is money. It is kept in the Court custody. It will not lose its value etc.” and resultantly, declined to allow the petition for handing over of the cash to the petitioner on interim custody. 3. Assailing the correctness of the orders of dismissal in Cr. M.P. No. 2934 of 2012 dated 19.11.2012 passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the learned Special Judge should have allowed the Miscellaneous Petition, in as much as he has failed to appreciate the fact that the prayer of the revision petitioner/petitioner is only for an interim custody and that too after affording sufficient opportunity. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ingredients of Sections 62 and 63 of the NDPS Act would not stand in the way of consideration as regards the applicability of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Also, the learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance on the Honourable Supreme Court decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar v. State of Gujarat AIR 2003 SC 638 : (2002) 10 SCC 283 : 2003 (1) CTC 175 , strenuously urges before this Court that currency could be termed as property for the purpose of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which can very well be returned to the petitioner after taking necessary photos and recording the serial numbers of the currency. 6. Yet another plea on the side of the revision petitioner is that the petitioner has volunteered himself to give an undertaking for the return of the cash, but this material aspect of the matter has not been looked into by the trial Court in a proper and real perspective. 7. 6. Yet another plea on the side of the revision petitioner is that the petitioner has volunteered himself to give an undertaking for the return of the cash, but this material aspect of the matter has not been looked into by the trial Court in a proper and real perspective. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the cash idle in the custody of the Court and in any event, just because there is a provision in regard to the confiscation, the same cannot be a valid reason for the trial Court to dismiss the Cr. M.P. No. 2934 of 2012. 8. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the money recovered in the present case viz., Rs. 54,700/- and odd, represents the cash raised by the petitioner after obtaining jewel loan from the co-operative Bank. But this is disputed by the prosecution on the footing that while recovering five kilograms of Ganja, the amount has been seized and it represents the sale proceeds of selling Ganja. 9. Conversely, it is the contention of the learned Government advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent that the seizure of a sum of Rs. 54,750/- in cash from the petitioner at the time of recovery of 5 kilograms of Ganja cannot be returned to the petitioner because of the fact that the said sum represents the sale proceeds of the selling of Ganja and therefore, prays for dismissal of the Revision Petition, since the trial Court has rightly dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition, in the interest of Justice. 10. At this stage, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/petitioner cites the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (supra), wherein at page 176, it is held that “The Court exercising powers regarding custody and disposal of property pending trial can under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pass appropriate orders with regard to such property like (a). order for the proper custody of property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial; (b). order to sell or otherwise dispose of after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary. (c). If the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, to dispose of the same. Powers so vested should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously.” 11. order for the proper custody of property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial; (b). order to sell or otherwise dispose of after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary. (c). If the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, to dispose of the same. Powers so vested should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously.” 11. He also invites the attention of this Court to the decision in G. Chandramohan v. State by Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Kumbakonam (Tk), Thanjavur District 2005 (1) CTC 746 , wherein at page 747, at paragraph 3, it has observed and held as follows: “The fact that investigation is pending may not be a ground to refuse the return of the vehicle since return of the vehicle to the petitioner will not in any way hinder further investigation. Even if the vehicle is required, on notice, the petitioner may be directed to produce the vehicle, which cannot be denied. On the other hand, without returning vehicle if it is left exposed to hot sun and rain, only skeleton will remain at the end of the trial, which could not be used for any purpose. Without considering these facts, as if the vehicle is required for investigation, both the Courts below have dismissed the application for return of the vehicle, which appears to be not sound. It is also not the case of the prosecution at present that the vehicle has been ordered to be confiscated by initiating proceedings. Even if any proposal is initiated for confiscation of the vehicle, interim custody will not be a bar. Even if confiscation proceedings are initiated, appropriate orders could be passed, directing the petitioner to produce the vehicle. In that view of the matter, to save the vehicle, I am inclined to order return of the vehicle for interim custody to the petitioner on the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner executes a bond for a sum of Rs. Three lakhs in cash before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam; (ii) Produce proof of ownership of the vehicle and (iii) Files affidavit of undertaking stating that (a) he will not alienate, encumber or change the physical features of the vehicle; (b) he will produce the vehicle on the first working day of every month before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam, until furthers from this Court.” 12. It is to be noted in regard to the disposal of property as per Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is necessary that the property should be under the control of the learned Magistrate. The order passed under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is during the pendency of trial or enquiry. 13. In the present case, the main contention of the petitioner is that the sum of Rs. 54,700/- seized from the petitioner at the time of arrest represents currency and there can be no impediment for the return of the said amount in cash to the petitioner as an interim custody because of the fact that the petitioner is ready and wiling to return back the said amount by virtue of his undertaking. 14. It is to be borne in mind that normally the currency, gold/silver articles can be returned to the party from whom it has been seized/recovered by preparing a detailed panchanama of such article after taking adequate security and even by means of taking photographs of articles and a bond to that effect. 15. Admittedly, the Central Government is charged with the duty of Preventing and Controlling the threat and menace of illicit traffic in Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances as per decision in Rajkumar v. Union of India AIR 1991 SC 45 : (1990) 2 SCC 409 . 16. It is not out of place for this Court before that money recovered is confiscated as the sale proceeds of selling Ganja/selling Drugs, the prosecution must establish in the main case that the accused realised the money by selling either Ganja or drug in a given case. Mere plea to that effect or mere recovery is not sufficient to establish the nexus, as opined by this Court. It is also to be taken note of that confiscation or forfeiture of a vehicle or money is a penalty and the owner concerned ought to be given an opportunity/notice of being heard to substantiate his version/point of views. It cannot be gain said that the NDPS Act 1985 is enacted for the purpose of declaring law relating to Narcotic Drugs to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and for matter connected therein. 17. In view of the divergent stand taken by the petitioner that sum of Rs. 17. In view of the divergent stand taken by the petitioner that sum of Rs. 54,700/- (Rupees Fifty four thousand and Seven hundred only) represents the jewel loan amount and this is being disputed by the Respondent/Prosecution by saying that in fact, the money represents the sale proceeds of Ganja, this disputed fact/controversy will have to be gone into by the trial Court, at the time of trial of the main case. Also that the cash amount is in Court custody and it will not lose its efficacy or value in any manner, in the considered opinion of this Court. Viewed in that perspective, this Criminal Revision Case fails. 18. In the result, this criminal revision petition is dismissed. The order passed by the trial Court in Cr. M.P. No. 2934 of 2012 is confirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Criminal Revision Petition. Petition dismissed.