Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 7590 Raj
Judgement Date : 2 September, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:36220]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5833/2024
1. Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Nanak Das, Aged About 43 Years,
R/o Ward No.7, 12 Kishnawali Dhani, Jaitsar, District
Sriganganagar (Raj)
2. Ramesh Kumar S/o Megharam, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Chak.7, Sgr-B, P.s. Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar
(Raj)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Joshi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order
02/09/2024
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by a direction of depositing Rs.
1,50,000/- as a pre-condition for release of his vehicle on
superdari. Said condition has been imposed vide impugned order
dated 24.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar, in Appeal No. 47/2024, filed under
Section 6(C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Appeal was
directed against an order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the learned
District Collector, Sriganganagar, disposing of an application of the
petitioners for release of the vehicle (Pickup RJ-13-GB-7296),
which was seized under Section 6(C) of the Essential Commodities
Act, 1955.
2. Offending vehicle was seized for carrying diesel beyond the
permissible limit i.e. 3,360 liters as against 2,500 liters.
[2024:RJ-JD:36220] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-5833/2024]
3. Having perused the case file and after hearing the rival
arguments, it transpires that undisputedly petitioners are not in
the business of sale or purchase of diesel which is an essential
commodity under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act.
They had purchased 3,360 liters of diesel for their personal use
and half of it was for their known person i.e. Devi Lal. Valid bill of
purchase was produced before the authority.
3. It is further stated that the petitioners are poor persons and
are unable to deposit the substantial amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as
penalty. The vehicle in question is their only means of livelihood to
support their family.
4. Petitioner is contesting the imposition of penalty of
Rs.1,50,000/- apart from merits the other charges, which have
been invoked against the petitioner.
5. Heard.
6. Reference may be had to the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment
rendered in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat
reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 and whereafter in the judgment of
Sainaba Vs. The State of Kerala & Anr.
7. In the event of petitioner is unable to manage depositing of
Rs.1,50,000/-, it would result in the vehicle to continue to be in
the custody of the investigative agency. It transpires that the
vehicle has been in custody since 22.07.2023. Needless to say,
the same would turn into a complete junk by the time the trial is
concluded.
8. In the aforesaid premise, I am of the view that the impugned
order dated 24.07.2024 deserves to be modified. Vehicle in
[2024:RJ-JD:36220] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-5833/2024]
question is directed to be released upon fresh filing of the
application by the petitioner and instead of imposing penalty of
Rs.1,50,000/-, the same is modified to the extent that petitioners
shall furnish a guarantee of an equivalent amount of penalty i.e.
Rs.1,50,000/- to the learned trial court with an undertaking that
they will not sell the vehicle, during pendency of the proceedings,
should the need arise to recover the penalty through coercive
means in case their defence is not accepted on conclusion of trial.
9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J 89-Sumit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!