DEV KUMAR RUSIYA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR
LAWS(CHH)-2005-9-17
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Decided on September 27,2005

Dev Kumar Rusiya Appellant
VERSUS
VIJAY KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

DHIRENDRA MISHRA, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been preferred by the petitioner under section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned order dated 28-9-2004 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge Sakti in Criminal Revision No. 276/2004 by which the criminal revision preferred by him against the order dated 3-6-2004 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sakti has been rejected.
(2.) THE instant petition has been filed for interim custody of the Marshal Jeep bearing registration No. CG-11-6458 which was seized in connection with Crime No. 96/2004 registered at Police out post Hasoud Police Station Jaijaipur District Janjgir Champa. The case of the petitioner is that he entered into an agreement for purchase of the above mentioned jeep with respondent No.2 on 3-4-2004 for a consideration of Rs. 2,91,000/- and a sum of Rs. 1,01,000/- was paid by him to respondent No.2 as advance money and thereby the petitioner obtained the possession of the said jeep. Subsequently, on 6-4-2004 the petitioner further paid a sum of Rs. 90,000/- to respondent No.2 and the sale letter was executed by respondent No.2 in the name of the petitioner on 7-4-20o4. The petitioner after obtaining No Objection Certificate from respondent No.2 and M/s Mahindra and Mahindra, the financer of the Jeep, got the said jeep transferred in his name and thus became the registered owner of the same with effect from 20-7-2004. On 24-5-2004, the jeep in question was seized by the Police from one Krishna Shinde in connection with the aforesaid crime. Respondent No. 1 as also the petitioner applied for the interim custody of the vehicle before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sakti. However, learned Magistrate vide order dated 3-6-2004 rejected the application of the petitioner and allowed the application preferred by respondent No.1 and thereby directed the vehicle to be given in the interim custody of respondent No. 1. the petitioner preferred the criminal revision against the order dated 3-6-2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sakti which was also rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti by the impugned order. Hence this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders passed by both the Courts below are based on erroneous appreciation of the law and the same are against the established law for granting interim custody of the vehicle. He further submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the jeep in question and it was seized from the custody of one Krishna Shinde who was playing the said jeep as per the authorization letter given to him by the petitioner. It is also not disputed that the jeep in question was sold by its registered owner (respondent No.2) to the petitioner and after execution of the sale letter and after obtaining the No Objection Certificate from respondent No.2 as also from the financer the jeep in question was registered in the name of the petitioner. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, both the Courts below have allowed the application filed by respondent No. 1 for interim custody of the said jeep recording a finding that respondent No.2 sold the said jeep to respondent No.1 on 23-10-2002 and therefore petitioner Dev Kumar can not be prima facie held to be the owner of the said jeep.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.