The competency of the seizing officer and the absence of a theft case are crucial factors in determining the release of seized property.

N.P.Singh, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr M. M. Pal, learned S. C. I.

2. In this writ petition a prayer has been made for release of the coal in favour of the petitioners which was seized in connection with Baliapur P S Case No. 17 of 1992 under Sec. 414, IPC.

3. learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the coal in question was seized by the Respondent No. 3 inspector C. I. S. F. who was not competent to make seizure under Secs. 7 and 12 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968. He further contended that no case of theft of coal in question has been lodged before the police.

4. Learned S. C. I., however, conceeded that the Respondent No, 3 Inspector, C. I. S. F. is not vested with the power to make seizure.

5. In this view of the matter. We direct the Respondent No. 2 Officer incharge, Baliapur P. S. to release the coal in question to the petitioners on furnishing sufficient security to his satisfaction. It is however, made clear that he will not insist for Bank guarantee or cash security.

6. With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of.