Tasbeer Singh vs State of Rajasthan

K.K. Acharya, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

The brief facts of the case are that a F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station, Sadulshahar by one Om Prakash Jangid and a case was registered u/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The Jeep bearing number PB-30C-1393 loaded with kerosene was seized on the contravention of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed against the accused. This Jeep belongs to the petitioner-Tasbeer Singh. The said seized jeep was produced before District Collector, Sri Ganganagar, who while disposing off the application moved u/s 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act by the petitioner released the jeep but has asked for bank guarantee of Rs. three lakhs.

The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that learned District Collector, Sri Ganganagar while releasing the Jeep has asked for the bank guarantee of Rs. three lakhs which is a harsh condition instead of bank guarantee solvent surety should have been taken.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a judgment of this High Court before me in the case of Veerendra Singh Vs. Superintendent, District Jail and Another, In this case, it was held that the condition of asking for bank guarantee of Rs. 2.50 lakhs is quite onerous and unjustified which amounts to abuse of process of the Court and the petitioner was asked to furnish two solvent sureties.

Learned Public Prosecutor states that Collector, Sri Ganganagar has asked for bank guarantee of Rs. three lakhs only for releasing the jeep therefore, it cannot be treated as onerous condition.

I have gone through the order of District Collector, Sri Ganganagar dated 2-7-2002.

In view of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Veerendra Singh Vs. Superintendent, District Jail and Another, , I am also of the view that the condition of furnishing of Bank guarantee of Rs. three lakhs appears to be onerous and unjustified with amounts to abuse of process of the Court.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is partly allowed and the order of the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar dated 2-7-2002 is modified and it is ordered that the petitioner instead of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs. three lakhs shall furnish solvent surety of Rs. three lakhs along with personal bond (Superdginama) in the sum of Rs. three lakhs to the satisfaction of the Collector, Sri Ganganagar to the effect that the petitioner shall produce the said jeep as and when ordered by the Collector, Sri Ganganagar and the petitioner shall not sell, transfer or alienate the said jeep to any person till the final adjudication of the matter.