OM PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. SESSION JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, the claimant of Truck No. U.H.N. 2062 which is case property in Crime No. 97 of 1991, is an accused for an offence under Sections 302/364/379/411/201/420/467/468 I.P.C. He has filed present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with the prayer that the order dated 3/2/1992 passed by the Sessions Judge Siddharth- nagar confirming the order dated 19/10/1991 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Siddharthnagar rejecting the application of the petitioner for release of aforesaid vehicle as the same was registered in his name, may so quashed by issuing a writ of Certiorari.

(2.) The prosecution story was that certain material was sent through the Truck in question and the deceased also went on the Truck along with material and when the deceased did not turn up F.I.R. was lodged at the Police Station. The investigation was in progress. It was alleged by the petitioner that during investigation the Truck in question was seized by the police and certain articles were also recovered. The Truck No. UHN 2062 was actually used as Truck No. UHN 3002 on 21/2/1991 after making interpolation and change in the chassis and engine. Petitioners case was that the Truck was registered in his name hence the same may be released in his favour. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Siddharthnagar by his order dated 19/10/1991 rejected the application of the petitioner with the observations that as at one place registration No. of the Truck has been shown as 3002 and there is interpolation, erasure and change in the engine and chassis number of Truck, and it would be required in the same condition as it stands, therefore, there was no question to release the Truck in favour of petitioner. Against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate revision was filed which met the same fate. Hence present petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in view of the provisions of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code), it is obvious that the Court has jurisdiction to pass an order for release of the vehicle, if it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property, pending conclusion of enquiry or trial. Reliance was placed on Jagat Singh v. State of U.P., Amarjeet Singh v. State of U.P., and Aniruddh Rai v. State of U.P..