S.P. Pathak, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 11.06.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kekri District Ajmer in Criminal Revision No. 17/2010 by which the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 29.05.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sarwar district Ajmer by which the application of the petitioner for giving custody of the vehicle in question on supardginama was rejected.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts for the disposal of the present petition are that on 2.3.2010, the complainant Heeralal Goswami, Panchayat Prasar Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Arai lodged a report in the police station Sarwar district Ajmer. On his report, FIR No. 50/2010 was registered against accused Ram Singh and Karan Singh for the offence under Sections 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 394, 332 and 353 IPC. During investigation vehicle bearing No. RJ -01 CA 3145 was seized by the police. The matter is still pending investigation. An application for supardgi of the vehicle was moved by the petitioner before the trial court on the ground that the petitioner is the father of accused Ram Singh and is registered owner of the vehicle, therefore, he is entitled to receive the vehicle on supardginama. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sarwar, Ajmer rejected the application moved by the petitioner on 29.5.2010. Having felt aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kekri district Ajmer but without any success as the revision was dismissed on 11.6.2010. Hence, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed. It has been contended that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and the vehicle in question has been purchased on being financed, therefore, the courts below have committed illegality in drawing the conclusion that the vehicle was purchased from the embezzled amount of the Panchayat. It is also contended that the petitioner is not at all concerned with the irregularities committed by the accused in the above FIR. It is also contended that if the vehicle in question is kept in the police station, there is every likelihood that it would be damaged and after lapse of some time it will be of no use, therefore, the vehicle requires to be given on supardgi to him on the conditions determined by the court. It is also contended that the trial court on the basis of presumption and some disclosure statement made by Ram Singh, one of the accused in the case came to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was purchased from the embezzled amount but then the documents submitted by the petitioner and the vehicle being financed by the financing agency, it cannot be said that the vehicle in question was purchased from the embezzled amount.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned public prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.;