P.K.Jain - (1.) HEARD Sri S. K. Agarwal on behalf of Sri. M. C. Agarwal and Sri. R. K. Dubey holding brief for Sri M. K. Saxena.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present revision are that the revisionist, Sayeed Khan, approached Sri Rajendra Kumar Maheshwari, a partner of M/s. Tek Chandra Bhagwan Das, for advancing loan for purchase of a truck. Revisionist, Sayeed Khan failed to pay instalments according to the agreement, Ex. Ka-1. The Financer requested revisionist Sayeed Khan to deliver the truck. Later on Rajendra Kumar Maheshwari learnt that Sayeed Khan had obtained fictitious registration by changing engine No. as well as chassis No. of the vehicle. An F.I.R. was lodged by Rajendra Kumar and truck was seized by the police. Ramzan Khan brother of Sayeed Khan moved an application for release of the truck which was rejected by the Court below. Rajendra Kumar also moved an application for release of the truck in his favour and that application too was rejected by the trial court. Rajendra Kumar preferred an appeal which was allowed by the appellate court and the truck in question was released in favour of Rajendra Kumar Maheshwari on executing a personal bond of Rs. 40,000 and two sureties Rs. 20,000 each. In this revision, the order of the appellate court is challenged on the ground that the evidence in the case has already been concluded. The impugned order was wrongly passed under Section 451, Cr. P.C. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I do not find any merit in this revision. The trial was still pending. Hence order for interim custody could be passed only under Section 451, Cr. P.C. The application for interim relief could not be rejected on the ground that the trial was likely to conclude soon as the learned appellate Judge observed that the truck was lying at the police station since long. The appellate court also observed that Ramzan Khan, brother of Sayeed Khan, got fictitious Registration Certificate by changing chassis No. and engine No. of the vehicle. Admittedly, a civil suit is pending between the parties in which both the parties have claimed ownership of the vehicle in question. The order in question shall be subject to the final decision of the civil court.
(3.) THE revision is dismissed. Stay order dated 14.8.84 is vacated.;