ORDER : 1. The applicant is registered owner of Honda Car bearing registration No.CG-04/LE-9444 and that vehicle was found involved in a criminal case bearing Special S.T.No.43/2016 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Dharmendra and others) pending in the Court of Special Judge (NDPS), Dhamtari. It was further alleged that on 30-7-2016 the said vehicle was found carrying 9.600 Kgs. of Ganja. The applicant moved an application under Section 457 of the CrPC for interim custody of the vehicle. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected by the learned Special Judge holding that prima facie, the vehicle was found involved in the commission of offence and is likely to be confiscated therefore, interim custody of the said vehicle cannot be granted feeling aggrieved against which this revision has been preferred by the applicant herein. 2. Mr. Vivek Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, would submit that the learned Special Judge (NDPS) has committed jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order rejecting the application. He would contend that if the seized vehicle is kept for a long time in open place in the police station, there is danger of it being damaged by vagaries of weather and no useful purpose will be served by detaining the vehicle in the police station till the trial is concluded. The applicant is ready and willing to comply with all the conditions which may be imposed for production of the vehicle seized or comply the order of confiscation which may be passed after trial by the trial Court. Therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the applicant be granted the interim custody of the vehicle till the final disposal or till the final confiscation proceeding. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, would oppose the criminal revision and would submit that huge quantity of Ganja was recovered from the vehicle and if the vehicle is released at this stage, it would frustrate the purpose of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the application has rightly been rejected by the Special Judge (NDPS). 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 5. In order to decide the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice Sections 60 and 63 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 which state as under: - "60. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 5. In order to decide the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice Sections 60 and 63 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 which state as under: - "60. Liability of illicit drugs, substances, plants, articles and conveyances to confiscation.- (1) ****** *** (2) ****** *** (3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled 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 conveyance 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. 63. Procedure in making confiscations.-(1) In the trial of offences under this Act, whether the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged, the court shall decide whether any article or thing seized under this Act is liable to confiscation under section 60 or section 61 or section 62 and, if it decides that the article is so liable, it may order confiscation accordingly. (2) Where any article or thing seized under this Act appears to be liable to confiscation under section 60 or section 61 or section 62, but the person who committed the offence in connection therewith is not known or cannot be found, the court may inquire into and decide such liability, and may order confiscation accordingly: Provided that no order of confiscation of an article or thing shall be made until the expiry of one month from the date of seizure, or without hearing any person who may claim any right thereto and the evidence, if any, which he produces in respect of his claim: Provided further that if any such article or thing, other than a narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, controlled substance, the opium poppy, coca plant or cannabis plant is liable to speedy and natural decay, or if 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; and the provisions of this sub-section shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of the sale." 6. By virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the NDPS Act, any vehicle used for carrying any NDPS drug is liable to be confiscated under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 60 of the NDPS Act, unless the owner of the vehicle proves that it was so used without his knowledge. 7. The short question for consideration would be whether the offending vehicle which has been found involved in the commission of offence can be directed to be released by granting an application under Section 457 of the CrPC. 8. The provisions of Section 451/457 of the CrPC provide for order for interim custody and disposal of the property pending trial, in case the property is subject to speedy and natural decay and if it is otherwise in the interest of the owner, to this extent, the provisions of Section 451 of the CrPC are not applicable. The object of the NDPS Act is to see that the vehicle which is used for such an offence is not made available to the persons who have indulged in these activities. They shall not have the benefit of such a vehicle. By and large, if an accused person is himself the owner of the vehicle and he uses such a vehicle for the purpose of conveying the drugs, then, of course, it is possible for the prosecution to contend that it is against the interest of justice that such a vehicle be given to the accused pending trial. But in a given case, it might be that a vehicle belonging to innocent owner is misused by the accused and in that event, if seized by the officer, it does not mean that such an owner has to wait till the trial is completed for the purpose of getting an order of return of the vehicle from the Magistrate. In such cases, subject to a guarantee that the vehicle becomes available for the purpose of confiscation, if any, the Court has necessarily the jurisdiction to pass an order for interim custody either under Section 451 or Section 457 (1) of the CrPC, as the case may be. An order under Section 451 or Section 457 (1) of the CrPC guarantees return of the vehicle at the time of the final hearing of the matter, or as and when called upon by the Court. An order under Section 451 or Section 457 (1) of the CrPC guarantees return of the vehicle at the time of the final hearing of the matter, or as and when called upon by the Court. It secures, subject to certain terms and conditions, the interim custody of the vehicle pending trial. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab and others, (1999) 5 SCC 670 while considering the meaning of word "owner" as used in Section 60 (3) of the NDPS Act, held that owner must the registered owner of a vehicle in whose name the vehicle stands registered under the Motor Vehicles Act and further held that Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act was enacted to have it as a deterrent measure to check the offences under the Act, which is dangerous to the society, and observed as under in paragraph 2: - "2. Under sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the NDPS Act, any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the conveyance 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 precaution against such use. There is no dispute that the vehicle in question was found to be carrying certain narcotics. The bone of contention of the appellant is that in view of the hire-purchase agreement, the appellant continues legally to be "the owner" of the vehicle so long as the entire hire-purchase money has not been paid and therefore unless and until it is established that the vehicle was used for carrying of narcotics with the knowledge of the appellant, an order of confiscation could not have been passed. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on a decision of a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Punjab Kashmir Finance (P) Ltd. v. State, 1993 CriLJ 498 (Raj). The expression "owner" has not been defined in the NDPS Act. There is also no dispute that under the hire-purchase agreement the title to the vehicle is retained with the appellant until and unless the entire hire-purchase money is paid back. The expression "owner" has not been defined in the NDPS Act. There is also no dispute that under the hire-purchase agreement the title to the vehicle is retained with the appellant until and unless the entire hire-purchase money is paid back. But, if the contention of the appellant is accepted, then all the vehicles which have been purchased on hire purchase basis, cannot be confiscated notwithstanding the fact that the vehicles were found to be used for commission of offences under the NDPS Act in carrying narcotic and psychotropic substances. The very purpose for engrafting sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the NDPS Act is to have it as a deterrent measure to check the offences under the Act in question which have been found to be dangerous to the entire society. In the absence of any definition of "owner" in the NDPS Act, it would be reasonable for us to construe that the expression "owner" must be held to mean the "registered owner" of the vehicle in whose name the vehicle stands registered under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act." 10. Thus, the Supreme Court has held clearly that interim custody of seized vehicle cannot be denied to a registered owner on the ground that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the NDPS Act. 11. Undisputedly and admittedly, the applicant is registered owner. Criminal proceeding as well as the process of confiscation is on way and it is in progress and therefore unless and until it is established that the vehicle in question was actively used for carrying of the narcotic drug with the knowledge of the applicant / registered owner particularly, taking in view that the vehicle is lying unused in open place in the police station and there is every chance that the vehicle is likely to be damaged if it is kept unused for fairly long time or till the disposal of the criminal case or confiscation proceeding and considering the plea raised by the applicant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in denying the interim custody of the vehicle to the applicant. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. 12. Keeping in view that the property seized is subject to speedy and natural decay and further in the light of the decision in Ganga Hire Purchase (supra), it is directed that the impugned vehicle Honda Car bearing registration No.CG-04/LE-9444 shall be delivered to the applicant on supurdnama subject to his producing the original registration certificate and further on satisfying the following conditions: - 1. The applicant / registered owner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.5,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court on undertaking to produce the vehicle in the Court as and when required. 2. The applicant shall get the vehicle photographed showing the registration number as well the chassis number. Such photograph shall be taken in the presence of the investigating officer to be kept on the file of the case. 3. The personal bond of the applicant / registered owner and bonds of sureties shall carry the photographs of the owner and his sureties and the bond of sureties shall further carry the photographs of persons identifying them before the Court which would be with full residential proofs of the sureties and the persons identifying them. 4. The applicant / registered owner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the truck and not to lease it to any one and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make identifiable. 13. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the revision is allowed accordingly.