JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Some complains were against on'- Satya Narain Gupta, who is serving in PWD, State of Rajasthan as Superintending Engineer. On 22.1.91, one FIR No. 15/93 was registered at Pradhan Arakshi Kendra State Investigation Bureau, Jaipur against Shri Gupta for the offenceunder section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Earlier also some departmental proceedings were held against Shri S.N. Gupta. On 23rd January, 1993 the search was conducted at his residence and it has been found that he acquired wealth to the tune of Rs. 85,02,743/-, this was disproportionate to the tune of Rs. 71,86,743/ -, beyond known sources of his income. During the search, the concerned ACD officials also doubted that part of the wealth of Shri Gupta is lying with his relatives and friends, and Mr. Pawan Kumar is one of them. Therefore, the locker of Pawan Kumar in Allahabad Bank, Ambabari Jaipur has been checked. While it was opened then 24 items of jewellery were found. The key of the locker remained with the ACD officials. Thereafter, an application was moved by the petitioner to give the jewellery on supurdginama and when that has been rejected the petitioner preferred the petition u/ Section 482 Cr.P.C. In that petition this Court directed the Trial Court to pass appropriate order under Section 451 or 457 Cr.P.C. 2. In compliance of the direction of this Court vide order dated 23.4.93, the Trial Court has passed the impugned order dated 14.9.93 and ordered to return the jewellery subject to the conditions, which read as under: "ATHA: PRARTHIGHAN KA TEENO PRARTHNA PATTR SWEKAR KIYA JATA HA1. YADI PRARTHIGHAN APNA APNA LOCKERS MAI JEEWRAT KA SAMBHANDMAI VIVRAN PESH KRAE KI UNHONAE SAMAN VHE JEVERAT KAB KISSA AUR KIS PRAKAR ARJIT DHAN SA KREY KIYA AUR KREY KEYA JANA KI RASDAT MAY UPROKT VIVRAN KA SHAPATPATRO KA NAYAALLAYA MAI PRUSTUT KAR DAE. AUR JEVRAT THATA SAMAN KI KEEMAT KO HAD TAK KI RASHI KI BANK-GURANTEE THATHA JEVRAT VAE SAMAN KI KEEMAT KA BARABAR PRATHYEK MAMLA MAI PRARTHIGHAN SUPURDGI NAMA PRASTUT KAR DAE THATA ANUSANDHAN ADHAKARI KI MOOJUDGI MAI SAMAST JEVERAT AUR AUR SAMAN KA SPESTH RANGEEN FOTOE KHICHWAKER NAYAALYA MAI PRUSTUT KARDAETO PRARTHIGHAN KO UNKA SAMBHANDHIT LOCKERS MAI RAKHA SAMAN AUR JAVERAT SAPURTHGI MAI DEYA JA SAKTA HAI. YADHI ANU SANDHAN ADHIKARI NAI ABHI TAK UPROKT LOCKERS MAI SAMAN AUR JAVERAT KA MULANKAN NAHI KARWAYA HAITO VHO MULAKYAN KARWAKER VIDHI ANUSAR NAYAALLYA MAI REPORT PRUSTUT KRANGA JISKA ANUSAR SUPURDGI NAMA KO KARYAVAHI KI JAYAGI." 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conditions, this petition has been preferred. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Bajwa submitted that though the Trial Court has ordered for release of jewellery on supurdginama but imposed same unreasonable conditions. Specially he has grievance regarding the condition of Bank- Guarantee. He submitted that petitioner is ready to furnish the solvent-security and there will be no less to the Government/ prosecution and as and when the articles will be demanded by the Court the same will be produced in the Court. On the other hand earned PP submitted that in case of confiscation of the jewellery the Bank- Guarantee is necessary in the interest of prosecution/Government. 4. Considering the submission of the Counsel for parties, the limited issue remains for my consideration is whether solvent-security will serve the purpose of prosecution, instead of Bank-Guarantee and in some cases, if receipt of particular item is not available the supurdginama of that item should not be denied on that ground also. Shri Bajwa submitted that in case of Bank-Guarantee the petitioner will have to deposit in the Bank the like amount of the value of jewellery and it is not possible for the petitioner to deposit such a large amount in Bank for Bank- Guarantee. Learned PP has not controverted this fact. 5. Regarding the receipts of articles, it is directed that in case the petitioner furnish full particulars regarding each item that when the same was acquired,, how acquired and source of income if purchased will have to be given by the petitioner to the, satisfaction of Trial Court, in addition to the conditions imposed by the Trial Court. 6. It is further directed that instead of Bank- Guarantee the petitioner shall furnish the sol- vent-security to the satisfaction of Trial Court. 6. It is further directed that instead of Bank- Guarantee the petitioner shall furnish the sol- vent-security to the satisfaction of Trial Court. It is also clarified that the property which is given in the security should be free from all encumbrances and that property will be subject to confiscation in case the petitioner fails to produce the items /jewellery given on supurdginamar within 15 days from the order of the Court, and the owner of such property shall have no right to call in question the confiscation of such property, if the property is confiscated in lieu of the jewellery given on supurdginama.The Misc. petition is disposed of as indicated .above.Petition allowed. *******