JUDGMENT 1. - Notice of this petition has been given to the State; and with the consent of both the learned Counsel, it is being finally disposed of at admission-stage. 2. Kailash Chand has preferred this miscellaneous petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code against the order of ADJ No. 2, Bharatpur (camp at Bayana) dated 22nd Jan.,1987, by which, he maintained the order of the MJM, Weir, with some modification. 3. Petitioner Kailash Chand booked his 120 bags of 'Urad' through Mini Transport Company for transportation from Indore to Delhi. That truck was seized by the Police of PS-Weir, on 16th Dec, 1986 alleging that the driver and the owner of the truck had Committed some offence. The bags of 'Urad' were also seized. When the petitioner moved the Magistrate, Weir, for delivering the goods to him on Supardginama, he passed the order dated 13th Jan., 1987, and ordered to deliver the goods on three conditions: the first condition was that the petitioner should produce a 'no objection' certificate from the Mini Transport Co. the second condition was that he should give a bank guarantee of Rs. 75,000/-; and the third condition was that the goods would be handed over on Supardginama of Rs. 75,000/-. Against this order, a revision was preferred, which was decided by the impugned order dated 22nd Jan., 1987, by the ADJ No. 2, Bharatpur, (camp at Bayana). He partly accepted the revision petition; and set aside the first condition, but, maintained the other two conditions. Aggrieved by that order, the present revision petition has been preferred. 4. Mr. Dhankhar, the learned for the petitioner argued that there is no dispute that the goods seized belong to the petitioner. According to him, there is no restriction in the transportation of 'Daal from one place to another and that, if any offence has been committed by the driver or the owner of the truck or by the Transport Company, that offence is not in relation to the transportation of goods but in some other matter, which has no connection with the present case. Therefore, Mr. Dhankhar argued that imposing the condition of furnishing bank-guarantee upon the petitioner would be hardship, who has to deposit the amount of Rs. 75,000/- in the bank for taking delivery of the seized goods. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor objected to the request of Mr. Therefore, Mr. Dhankhar argued that imposing the condition of furnishing bank-guarantee upon the petitioner would be hardship, who has to deposit the amount of Rs. 75,000/- in the bank for taking delivery of the seized goods. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor objected to the request of Mr. Dhankhar, and argued that the order of the lower court is not against law, and that, it cannot be said that there has been any abuse of the process of law, and therefore, in order to have guarantee of the goods, the order requiring furnishing bank-guarantee, is a reasonable one. 6. I have considered the arguments of both the sides. As there is no dispute regarding the ownership of the seized goods and if any offence has been committed by any body not in relation to the seized goods, there is no harm in delivering the goods, as held by both the learned lower courts. So, the condition of furnishing bank-guarantee, imposed by both the lower courts, is certainly hardship on the petitioner, specially in the circumstances when the seized good belong to the petitioner. Even to get either the goods or its price whenever needed by the Court, for handing over the property on Supardginama one surety would be sufficient. Though, there has been no abuse of the process of law, in the interest of justice, this Court can interfere under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is accepted with the modification that the seized goods be handed over on a Supardginama of Rs. 75,000/-, to the petitioner with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the MJM, Weir.Revision Partly Allowed. *******