HAFOOZ KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-1990-11-91
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 22,1990

HAFOOZ KHAN Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. This revision is directed against order of the lower appellate court passed in appeal under Section 454 Cr. P. C. setting aside the order of the Magistrate for release of an Ambassador Car in favour of the revisionist on furnishing a bond and sureties, and directing release of the same in favour of opposite party No. 2.
(2.) WHAT appears is that the said Ambassador Car was seized in connection with a case under Motor vehicle Act from opposite party No. 2. He appeared before the Magistrate confessed his guilt and was fined Rs. 100. 00 Thereafter both the parties claimed release in their favour. On 21. 2. 90 Magistrate found that the revisionist is registered owner and released the car in his favour on furnishing a bond and sureties. Against this opposite party No. 2. preferred appeal. Learned lower appellate court did not record categorical and clear finding that the opposite party No. 2 is the owner. Admission of opposite party No. 2 is that he could not get registration done in his favour. He, however, claimed the car on the basis of sale by Bhagwan Das. Said Bhagwan Das came in witness box and deposed about the same. On this material lower appellate court passed the impugned order. When it is admitted fact that the registration of the car is in favour of the revisionist and it is also admitted that opposite party No. 2 does not hold registration certificate of the car, the law is that only a registered owner can ply a vehicle. The cases of Devendra Kumar v. State of U. P, 1988 Cr. LJ NOC 14 and Dr. K. K. Jaiswal v. State of U. P, 1984 ACC 257 and S. Abdul Jabbar v. Khalil Ahmad and others, 1988 Cr. LJ 810 support the proposition that only the person holding registration is entitled to ply the car. Courts cannot permit any crime or illegality being committed by a party. In view of this law, the lower appellate court should not have interfered with the order of the learned Magistrate. Revision is allowed. Order of the learned lower court is set aside. Order of Magistrate regarding release is restored. Revision allowed. .;


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