Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J. - (1.) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against the impugned order No. 10 dated 21st January, 2015 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai, District: Purba Medinipur in G.R. Case No. 1016 of 2013 by which the custody of a vehicle (Truck) bearing Registration No. WB -31/4636 seized in a case registered under Sections 419/420/379 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC for the sake of brevity) in Contai P.S. Case No. 283 dated 27.08.2013 was handed over to the O.P. No. 2. After entering into appearance the O.P. No. 2 filed an application being CRAN No. 556 of 2015 for vacating the interim order passed on 05.02.2015. Both these applications were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment as those are inter -linked and also for the sake of convenience and brevity.
(2.) THE legality and validity of the impugned order has been assailed by the petitioner on the grounds inter alia that custody of the vehicle could have not at all been given to the O.P. No. 2, being not lawful owner thereof nor in lawful possession. On the other hand, the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and he has the authority to retain the vehicle and he cannot be deprived of the possession of the vehicle. The vehicle, as a matter of fact, was stolen by the O.P. No. 2 for which the petitioner lodged a written complaint on the basis of which FIR No. 283/13 was registered under Sections 419/420/379 IPC against the present O.P. No. 2 in police station, Contai, District: Purba Medinipur and during the course of investigation the police seized the vehicle. The factual matrix leading to the instant Revisional Application in a nutshell, is that the petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle bearing Registration No. WB -31/4636. An agreement was executed between the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2 on 3rd July, 2013 for sale of the said vehicle and the consideration price was fixed at Rs. 12,30,000/ - (Twelve lakh thirty thousand) only. The condition of the agreement was that steps has to be taken by the O.P. No. 2 within one month from the date of execution of the agreement for payment of the loan amount or transfer of the loan amount from the first party/petitioner to the second party/O.P. No. 2. Such condition was not fulfilled within the stipulated period and thus the vehicle was in the custody of the petitioner being the registered owner. The O.P. No. 2 stole the vehicle from the garage of Tutu in the Digha Bye Pass Road just in front of the Bajaj Show Room for which the petitioner lodged a complaint on the basis of which the aforesaid Contai P.S. Case No. 283/13 was started. Another complaint was lodged by Sagarika Pradhan, wife of O.P. No. 2 on 4th September, 2013 on the basis of which Contai P.S. Case No. 302/2013 dated 05.09.2013 under Sections 465/468/420/120B/34 IPC was registered. It was alleged that Rs. 4,30,000/ - (Four lakh thirty thousand) only was paid in cash to the petitioner by her husband/O.P. No. 2 and the outstanding loan account of the petitioner for Rs. 8,00,000/ - (Eight lakh) only was transferred in the name of the O.P. No. 2 by opening a loan account in his name in the Contai Cooperative Bank Ltd., Nanda Kumar Branch (hereinafter referred to as the said Bank) and money receipt was issued. Thereafter the petitioner handed over the vehicle to the O.P. No. 2 who sent it to 'Chowdhury Body Builders Garage' for repair, painting etc. and the O.P. No. 2 took the vehicle to his house from the said garage after completion of the work. On 23.07.2013 the said bank issued a letter to the RTA, Contai for changing the Loan Hypothecation and incorporating the name of the O.P. No. 2 in place of the petitioner. Her husband on good faith handed over that letter to the petitioner but he did not do anything and he kept that letter with him and lodged a false complaint in P.S. and got the vehicle seized.
(3.) ON the application made by the present petitioner praying for return of the seized vehicle the Learned Court below allowed such application by its order dated 03.03.2014 and directed that the seized vehicle be returned to the registered owner along with papers and documents on execution of a zimma bond of Rs. 13,00,000/ - (Thirteen lakh) only and on further condition not to change the nature and character of the vehicle and not to dispose of the same without prior permission of the Court and to produce the vehicle as and when called for. The O.P. No. 2 challenged such order before this Court by filing a Revisional Application which was registered as C.R.R. No. 1013 of 2014 and this Court on hearing the arguments advanced by the Learned Advocates appearing for the parties set aside the said order and directed the Learned Magistrate to reconsider the prayers for return of the seized vehicle made by both the petitioner and the present O.P. No. 2 afresh and to come to a reasoned decision thereon. In compliance with such direction the Learned Court below heard the matter afresh and passed the impugned order directing return of the seized vehicle to the O.P. No. 2 on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,00,000/ - (Twenty lakh) only and on certain other conditions. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order the petitioner has come up with the instant Revisional Application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C. for the sake of brevity).;