JUDGMENT The criminal revision case is filed by the revision petitioner/3rd party against the order dated 31.8.2013 in Crl. MP No.106/2013 in Crl. MP No.140/2008 in SC No.2/2008 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Crl. MP No.106/2013 which was filed seeking permission to sell away the vehicle involved in SC No.2/2008. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State. 3. The revision petitioner is a third party and the filed a petition under Section 451 Cr. P.C. before the Court below seeking to sell away the lorry bearing No.AP16-VI-668 which was allegedly involved in the commission of offence under NDPS Act and which was given interim custody to him. According to the revision petitioner, he has no knowledge about the commission of the alleged offence. The trial took place against the accused and except A-4, all the other accused were acquitted. The case against A-4 was split up as he was found to be absconding. The split up case is numbered as SC No.1/2011 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda dismissed the petition filed by the revision petitioner/finance company to which the offending vehicle was hypothecated, on the ground that the vehicle is essential for the purpose of conducting trial against A-4 to know his involvement in the commission of offence and without the said vehicle the trial cannot be proceeded with. 4. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003 (1) ALD (Crl.) 8 (SC) = (2002) 10 SCC 283, wherein the Hon,ble Supreme Court held that the Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody for the purpose of trial and the owner of the article should not be made to suffer. It was further held that if the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail. 5. It was further held that if the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail. 5. In the instant case also the vehicle was seized under proper panchanama and this Court is of the view that the production of the vehicle is absolutely unnecessary for the purpose of trial and the trial can be proceeded with on the basis of the evidence of the witnesses with reference to the panchanama which was recorded during course of investigation. 6. In the circumstances, the order passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, dated 31.8.2013 passed in Crl. MP No.106/2013 in Crl. MP No.140/2008 in SC No.2/2008 is set aside and the revision petitioner is permitted to sell away the offending lorry bearing No.AP16-V-1668 which was already given interim custody to him, subject to condition of the revision petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). 7. In the result, the criminal revision case is allowed.