1 223.11-appw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 223 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1996 OF 2010 Shri Dattatraya Vasant Bansode. ... Applicant. V/s. Shri V.S.Patil and others. ... Respondents. Umesh Mankapure for the applicant. P.A.Pol, P.P. for the State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 17th June 2011. P.C. : Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 2. The applicant has filed present application for direction to the respondent to return/release the truck bearing MH­10­2970 with allegation that the truck of the applicant was used for transporting the rice in contravention of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. An F.I.R. came to be registered. The petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.1996/2010 for quashing the said F.I.R. on the ground that the F.I.R. does not mentions as to which order issued under the Essential Commodities Act has been violated. Finding prima facie case, the learned Single Judge of this Court (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J) has admitted the petition vide order dated 24th November, 2010. Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) was also granted 2 223.11-appw after hearing the parties. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court for release of the truck which is confiscated under the order of the Additional Collector dated 14th June 2010. 3. Shri Mankapure, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that finding prima facie case writ petition of the petitioner has been admitted, Therefore, in the interest of justice, pending the hearing and final disposal of the petitioner the truck of the applicant be released on such terms and conditions as deemed fit by the Court. 4. Shri Pol, learned P.P. vehemently opposed this application. He submits that the order dated 14th June, 2010 is an appellable order and, therefore, the present application itself is not maintainable. He further submits that as a matter of fact the Additional Collector himself directed release of truck on the conditions mentioned in the order and, therefore, the present application should be dismissed. 5. Finding prima facie case in favour of the petitioner, learned single Judge of this Court has admitted the petition and granted interim relief thereby staying the proceedings in pursuance of the F.I.R. In the event the petition succeeds, the F.I.R. may be quashed and, as a consequence thereof, all further proceedings would come to an end. No doubt, learned Additional Collector has directed release of the truck. However, perusal of the order reveals that prior to release the applicant has been directed to deposit entire value of the truck. This condition, in my considered view, is an onerous condition which is difficult to be complied with. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Sunderbai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, has held that if a vehicle is seized in a crime, it is in the interest of justice, to release the same on supurtnama by imposing certain conditions in order to avoid rusting of the vehicle. The 3 223.11-appw Apex Court has held that if the vehicle is not released on Superatnama, there is a danger of the vehicle being rusted and rendered useless. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the petition. 7. The truck bearing No.MH­10 Z­2970 is directed to be released on the applicant’s furnishing one or two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.5 lakh to the authority. The applicant shall also give undertaking to the authority that they will not dispose of the truck or create third party rights in the said truck till the disposal of the present petition. In the undertaking it shall also be stated that the applicant shall produce the truck as and when directed by the authority. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to cost. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)