- (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the two orders first dated 18.9.2013 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi and the second dated 17.10.2013 passed by Sessions Judge, Kaushambi. He has also prayed to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to release his Truck No.UP 50 -T0385.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing on behalf of respondents.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner is owner of the truck in question. He had filed entire documents showing his ownership of the Truck before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate but the learned Magistrate without considering his documents, illegally rejected his release application on the ground that the truck was found in an abandoned state by the police and the same was brought and kept in safe custody in the premises of Police Station Kokhraj. Thereafter, it transpired that body of the aforesaid truck belonged to some other truck of one Raj Bahore Patel who had appeared before the police and had stated that the body of the truck in question pertains to his truck. According to Ram Bahore Patel he had sold his truck to one Ajit Singh who had issued a cheque of Rs.1.2 lacs to him but the said cheque was dishonoured. Thereafter, Raj Bahore Patel searched for Ajit Singh as well as his truck and he came to know that his truck was standing in the premises of police station Kokhraj. He came to police station and found the body of his truck having installed on the truck of petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the real story is that on 31.8.2013, his truck was going from Kanpur to Varanasi loaded with Tata Steel Pipes. In the way, the police officials stopped it and made illegal demand of money from its Driver and the Cleaner. When the Driver and the Cleaner of the truck resented, the police took the truck in custody and illegally mentioned in its report that the truck was found in an abandoned state. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner had produced the registration certificate of the truck before the learned Magistrate showing his name as the owner of the truck, along with registration No., Chasis No. and Engine No. of the truck. The petitioner had also filed the Builty receipt of Bharat Transport Corporation in proof of such fact. But both the courts below refused to release the truck in question in favour of the petitioner only on the ground that the body of the truck is disputed. Thus both the Courts below have committed gross miscarriage of justice by passing manifestly illegal orders.;