ORDER : Sri. Hashmath Pasha, learned Advocate, who is appearing for Respondent No.1, has also filed vakalath in respect of Respondent No.2. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as the counsel for the respondents. 3. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner, who is the complainant in F.No. DRI/BZU/S.IV/INT.09/ 2016 (CIS CR. No. 254/2016), has seized some articles as per Annexures - ‘A’ to ‘D’ by registering a case under the NDPS Act, from Medicine Production Factory by name M/s.RACS Pharamachem Pvt. Ltd., belonged to the respondents, who are the Directors of the said company. The products as per Annexures-‘A’ to ‘D’ are alleged to be intermediate products being manufactured and produced, and that will be given to the same company or the person who has placed orders with the respondents. The complainant has seized the said articles on the ground that the Respondent No.1 is storing and keeping those articles for the purpose of manufacturing NDPS and on such allegation, the seizure has been made. 4. The 2nd respondent has filed an application under Section 451 r/w. Section 457 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court seeking release of articles seized on 06.04.2016 as per Annexures – ‘B’, ‘C’ & ‘D’. Annexures - ‘B’, ‘C’ & ‘D’ admittedly are not drugs or NDPS by themselves and it is alleged that they are necessarily be released in favour of Respondent No.2, to avoid damage and also in the interest of public at large. The said application was strenuously contested on the above said ground and that the seized articles were stored for the purpose of manufacturing NDPS. 5. During the course of evidence, if it is proved that the articles are used for the purpose of manufacturing or preparing NDPS, then those articles are also liable to be confiscated or destructed. But for the present, no material placed before the Court to show that the materials/properties at Annexures - ‘B’ to ‘D’ themselves are NDPS in any manner. Therefore, it is contended by Respondent No.2 that, though the materials shown in Annexures - ‘B’ to ‘D’ are not NDPS articles, but they are wrongly seized by the competent authority. 6. But for the present, no material placed before the Court to show that the materials/properties at Annexures - ‘B’ to ‘D’ themselves are NDPS in any manner. Therefore, it is contended by Respondent No.2 that, though the materials shown in Annexures - ‘B’ to ‘D’ are not NDPS articles, but they are wrongly seized by the competent authority. 6. It is also suspected by the petitioner before this Court and as well as before the trial Court that, if the said articles are released in favour of Respondent No.2, that may be used for the purpose of preparing or manufacturing NDPS, in such an eventuality, the articles at Annexures - ‘B’ to ‘D’ are also become part and parcel of NDPS. Therefore, if it is released, it may give room to Respondent No.2 for utilising the same for any other purpose. 7. The trial Court on considering the above said grounds urged, in fact, has come to the conclusion that the articles marked at Annexures - ‘B’ to ‘D’ are machineries, books of accounts and raw-materials respectively and not NDPS. 8. A careful perusal of Annexures ‘B’ to ‘D’ reveal that Annexure - ‘B’ is with reference to machineries in the plant of Respondent No.2 and properties at Annexure - ‘D’ are the raw-materials, which were seized on the ground that they are stored for the purpose of manufacturing NDPS. Considering the above said factual aspects, the trial Court, in fact while releasing the said articles, has put certain stringent conditions on Respondent-2, i.e., if those articles are released, that should not be used for the purpose of manufacturing any contra-band or prohibited NDPS. Unless it is shown to the Court that Annexures - ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ in any manner attract any provisions of the NDPS, at this stage, they cannot be unnecessarily detained. Moreover on that ground, if articles are kept either in the custody of the Court or in the custody of the police and ultimately if the Court comes to the conclusion that Respondent No.2 is entitled for return of those articles, the Court must be in a position to return the properties in same condition when it were seized and if it is not possible, it leads to complexity and in that event the Government is liable to pay compensation. On the other hand, those articles can be safely maintained by Respondent-2 with a condition that the machineries and the books of accounts have to be produced by Respondent-2 during the course of evidence. If necessary such conditions can be imposed upon him while releasing the said articles. Sofar as the intermediate products are concerned, at this stage, unless it is not shown that they themselves form part and parcel of any NDPS or they themselves fall under the definition of any drug or NDPS as noted in the Act, then the Court cannot definitely come to the conclusion that the NDPS Act is attracted to those intermediate products. Therefore, the trial Court is right in releasing those intermediate products with a condition that it should not be used for manufacturing or preparing any NDPS product or any contraband article. 9. In the above circumstances, in my opinion, the revision petitioner has not made-out any strong or substantial ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. 10. Be that as it may. The conditions imposed by the trial Court in my opinion, can be modified by imposing one more condition. Therefore, with these observation the revision petition deserves to be disposed of by imposing one more condition i.e. Condition No.3 to be included in the operative portion of the order of the trial Court, in the following manner. “3. The complainant is at liberty to inspect the plant or the factory of Respondent No.2 during the course of investigation or during the Course of trail before the trial Court for the purpose of ascertaining whether the machineries (As per Annexure-B) and books of accounts (As per Annexure-C) are maintained in proper manner by Respondent No.2”. 11. Respondent No.2 (Applicant) is also directed to produce the Register and note books as per Annexure-C, if they are required by the Court at any point of time during the course of evidence. With the above observation, the revision petition is disposed of.