- (1.) K. L. Sharma, J. After hearing and conclusion of arguments by the learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the contesting opposite part No. 3 the following operative order passed on 20-12-1994 : "for reasons to be recorded later on, revision is hereby dismissed. Sd. K. L. Sharma, J. 20-12-1994. "
(2.) I, therefore, proceed to record the reasons for the aforesaid operative order This criminal revision was filed against the order dated 1-1994 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate XI, Allahabad to Miscelleneous Application No. Nil of 1994, State v. Unknown) whereby the application of the revisionist under Section 457, Cr. P. C. relating to the release of truck No. UP 70-D-8123 was dismissed and the Station Officer, Manjhanpur, Allahabad was directed to handover the possession of the said truck to opposite party No. 3. The impugned order passed by the XI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Allahabad shows that the revisionist being the son of opposite party No. 3 is claiming the custody of the truck against his father with whom he has fallen out and his father was declared by a public notice in the newspaper on January 1, 1994 that he has no connection with and has separated from his son Ashok Chandra Ram Bharose father of the revisionist further lodged a F. I. R. on 11-4-1994 at the Police Station, Manjhanpur that all the papers relating to his truck had been stolen away. On 14-9-1994 Ram Bharose also moved an application before the R. T. O. , Allahabad to the effect that his son Ashok Chandra had fabricated some documents and on the basis of those forged documents he has moved on 25-8-1994 an application for issuance of registra tion certificate of the truck. Ram Bharose has also filed Civil Suit No. 528 of 1994 in the Court of Civil Judge, Allahabad whereby Civil Judge passed an order that the status can be maintained. In this way there is a dispute between father and son about the ownership of the truck in question. How ever, admittedly 'ram Bharose was the registered owner of the truck and the original certificate of registration stood in the name of Ram Bharose. Revisionist Ashok Chandra claimed the transfer of the truck from the name of his father in his favour on the basis of an agreement allegedly executed later on by his father Ram Bharose who however, denying the execution of the agreement which is also the subject matter of the dispute in civil suit pending before Civil Judge, Allahabad. On 30- 9-1994 revisionist Ashok Chandra moved an application before Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad and Superintendent of Police (Rural), Allahabad complaining that some unknown person has snatched away his truck of which he is a registered owner and the police had taken the possession of the truck from the unknown person and kept it at P. S. Pacchim Sharira but the S. H O. later on returned the truck to unknown person. He, therefore, moved an application under Section 457, Cr. P. C. in the court of Magistrate for release of the truck from the possession of his father Ratn Bharose in his favour on the ground that he is registered owner. The Magistrate after being satisfied that the original registration certificate stood in the name of Ram Bharose the father of the revisionist and the alleged transfer of truck in favour of revisionist is subject matter of Civil Suit, he rejected the application and directed the S. H. O. to take the possession of the truck from a third person Sri Jawahar Lal Tripathi and to handover the possession of the truck to Ram Bharose, father of the revisionist. Being aggrieved against this order this revision has been preferred. The learned counsel for the revisionist has emphatically asserted that since the revisionist who is now a registered owner of the truck is entitled the possession of the truck. In support of his assertion he has placed re liance on the decision of the case in Devendra Kumar v. State of U. P. , 1988 (23) ACC (HC) 324. He further relied on the decision in the case of Dr. R. K. Jaiswal v. State of U. P. , 1984 (21) ACC (HC) 267. In the first case it has been found as a fact that the applicant Devendra Kumar was registered owner of the motor cycle which he has received in his marriage in 1962 but this motor cycle was forcibly snatched from him on 16-11-1983 by Radheysyam, Shiv Kumar and Satyapal Singh while he was going to village School. The learned Magistrate restored the motor-cycle to Devendra Kumar and directed the parties to initiate the proceeding in civil court to establish their claim and title. However, in revision the learned Sessions Judge reversed the order and directed that the motor-cycle be returned to the person from whose possession it was taken. Here in the present case a civil suit was already pending wherein the alleged transfer of the truck on the basis of alleged agreement was pending before the Civil Judge. The revisionist claim ing ownership of the truck on the basis of the alleged agreement and admit tedly he had not acquired the truck through his independent source and the truck in question was admittedly owned by his father Ram Bharose in whose favour the registration certificate was issued by the R. T. O. The truck in question was taken in custody by police from the possession of Ram Bharose. Therefore, the facts of the present case are different from those of the cited case. In these circumstances the order of the learned A. C. J. M. , Allahabad was perfectly justified directing the S. H. O. to handover the possession of the truck to the registered owner Ram Bharose from whose possession it was taken. There is no illegality in the impugned order if the possession of the truck was restored to the person from whose custody it was seized by the police and who stood registered owner originally in the record of the R. T. O. In the case of Dr. R. K. Jaiswal (supra) a dispute relating to the ownership and possession of truck No. U. T. O. 786 arose between alleged pur chaser Dr. R. K. Jaiswal on the one hand and Daulat Ram brother, Dhan Singh father of Govind Ram registered owner on the other hand. The G. J. M. directed the truck to be kept in the custody of police instead of releasing it in favour of any person until and subject to the decision of ownership from a competent Civil Court. In the revision the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order and directed the possession of truck to be given to Dhan Singh and Daulat Ram who were registered owner of the truck. He was of the opinion that if the truck is kept in police custody it would likely to be deteriorated and it was in the interest of either of the two parties. The High Court found the order of the Sessions Judge fully justified and dismissed the same. The deci sion recognises the same principle that the registered owner of the vehicle is to be preferred to the person who claims his title subsequently on the basis of purchase or otherwise. In the present case revisionist Ashok Chandra claimed his title to the truck in question on the basis of a subsequent agree ment which is denied by his father. The truck was admittedly acquired and owned and was registered in the name of his father Ram Bharose in the origi nal certificate of registration under Motor Vehicles Act. The claim of the revisionist is not that he acquired the truck himself independently but he claimed it as having been given to him by his father Ram Bharose on the basis of some alleged agreement the execution of which has been denied by his father. The registration certificate issued in the name of revisionist by R. T. O. , Allahabad on the basis of alleged agreement and allegedly forged document is itself disputed. This dispute is also pending in the competent Civil Court. Therefore, in these circumstances, the learned A. C. J. M. was justified on fact and in law direct the S. H. O. to take back the custody of the truck from the Supurdar Jawahar Lal Tripathi and to handover the custody of the truck to Ram Bharose father of the revisionist.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the contesting opposite party No. 3 has stated that in pursuance to the impugned order the S. H. O. has already handed over the custody of the truck to Ram Bharose on 30-11- 1994. He has also referred to the several documents annexed as Annexure Nos. 1 to 11 to the affidavit of Ram Bharose in order to show the ownership of the truck in ques tion. But need not refer to these documents as they related to the facts of the case which are already sub-juice in the court of Civil Judge, Allahabad because the observation if any made by this court may be prejudicial to either of the parties. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 Mr. Dilip Kamar has also referred to the decision in the cases of Maiiamh Dhruv Das v. Niyaz Ahmad, 1970 ACC 248 (HC) ; Brijendra Singh v. Brij Kumar Gupta, 1976 Cr LJ 467 Senseir Pal Singh v. Mohammad and others, 1991 JIC 339 ; Jafar Alt v. Tausik Hasan : 1971 Cr LJ 986 ; Kalpanath Singh v. Shiv Nath Rai: 1970 (16) ACC 274 (All) ; A. S. S. Ahamad Saheb v. Commissioner of Police, 1970 Crl LJ 1016 and Dakhini Prasad Srivastava v. State of U. P. , 1978 Cr LJ 204. On perusal of all these cases 1 found the different facts and circumstances of each cases but the principles of law followed in these cases are not disputed. I do not consider necessary to go into facts of each case and particularly provisions under which these cases were filed and disposed of.;