Judgment : D.K. Sinha, J.-This criminal revision is directed against the order impugned dated 28.9.2010, passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad in connection with R.C.2(A)/ 2004(D), by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for release of his seized articles by the CBI was rejected. 2. Prosecution story in short is that on the basis of the information received through some reliable sources, a case was instituted against the petitioner, who was an officer in the Department of Income Tax, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, alleging that while he was posted and functioning in different capacities under the Income Tax Department had amassed wealth by corrupt and illegal means, disproportionate to the known source of his income, which could not be accounted satisfactorily. Petitioner was granted regular bail by this Court on 9.10.2007. CBI after investigation submitted charge-sheet obtaining sanction under Section 197 of the' Code of Criminal Procedure from the competent authority as also under Section 19(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accordingly, cognizance of the offence' was taken under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad on 28.9.2010 observing that the items were seized during investigation and there were assets of the petitioner Swarn Singh to the tune of Rs.1,21,06,257/- to which the petitioner could not be able to account for satisfactorily. It was further observed that these items were acquired through illegal means by the petitioner therefore, at that stage the petition of the petitioner was dismissed. 3. Admittedly, several items were seized from the possession of the petitioner on 21.1.2004 and 22.1.2004 and the items were mentioned categorically. However, a reply was filed to the petition by the CBI-opposite party wherein the prosecution-CBI conceded that Item No. 3(ii), Item No. 3(iii), Item No. 3(iv) and Item No. 3(vi) could be released as per tabular chart filed by Shri Rajesh Chandra Khatri, Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad. 4. I have carefully gone through the tabular chart and Mr. Md. 4. I have carefully gone through the tabular chart and Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the CBI did not dispute the existence of this reply in writing made by the CBI before the learned Special Judge, CBI-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad wherein the CBI authority had conceded that the items mentioned hereinabove may be considered for release in favour of the petitioner but with certain undertakings to be executed by the petitioner, Mr. Khan added. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner as well as the Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the opposite party-CBI, the order impugned dated 28.9.2010, recorded by the learned Special Judge, CBI-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad in R.C. 2(A)/2004(D) is set aside and Item No. 3(ii), Item No.3(iii), Item No. 3(iv) and Item No. 3(vi), as per tabular chart, presented by the CBI in reply to the petition of the petitioner dated. 20.11.2007 (Annexure-6) are directed to be released in favour of the petitioner to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge aforesaid on executing undertaking that no part of such immovable property shall be alienated without prior permission of the Court and for other instruments like securities the Special Court may put suitable conditions. 6. With the observation aforesaid, this criminal revision is allowed.