Monday, 18, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Vinod Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:36220)
2024 Latest Caselaw 7590 Raj

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 7590 Raj
Judgement Date : 2 September, 2024

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Vinod Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:36220) on 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)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter