TIBREWAL, J. - (1.) BEING aggrieved against the order/judgment dated October 24, 1990 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Beawar, in criminal revision No. 14/90, the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the petitioner. The matter relates to the delivery of bus bearing registration No. RRM 5105. The said bus was seized by the police in criminal case FIR No. 143/90 P. S. Kekri, from the possession of non-petitioner No. 2 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge after reversing the order of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kekri, dated 14. 1. 90, directed that the aforesaid bus bearing registration No. RRM 5105 be handed over to non-petitioner No. 2 Shyam Sunder.
(2.) IN order to appreciate the rival claims of the parties, it is necessary to narrate the facts, in brief, which are as under. Petitioner Bhag Chand filed a complaint on 1. 9. 90 against the non-petitioner Shyam Sunder in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kekri which was forwarded under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. to SHO Police Station, Kekri. On receipt of the said complaint, criminal case No. 143/90 under sections 406,420, 379 IPC was registered at P. S. Kekri on 2. 9. 90. The case of complainant Bhag Chand, as pleaded in the said complaint, is that on March 13, 1990, the non-petitioner Shyam Sunder entered into an agreement with him by which he agreed to sell bus, bearing registration No. RNB 8667 for Rs. 2,12,501/-and an agreement was also executed that day. Rs. 85,000/- is said to have been paid by the complainant to non-petitioner Shyam Sunder as part payment towards the price of the bus. It was further stated that the said bus was registered in the name of Ratan Singh and Om Prakash of Bandikui and it was also hypothecated to United Commercial Bank at Bandikui, as the bank had financed on the said bus. As per the complainant, non-petitioner Shyam Sunder had assured him that after the loan amount is paid to the bank, the papers relating to the vehicle shall be handed over to him. Then, it is alleged that the non-petitioner Shyam Sunder did not deposit any amount in the bank and when the petitioner put pressure on him to hand over the relevant documents of the vehicle, another agreement was executed between the parties on 3. 7. 90, by which the non-petitioner Shyam Sunder had agreed to hand over the documents of the vehicle upto 11. 7. 90, and further agreed that in case he failed to hand over the papers, then the amount paid to him as part payment of the price of the vehicle shall be returned. It was further agreed that in case the money is also not returned, then he will hand over his bus bearing registration No. RRM 5105. It was further alleged that on 30. 8. 90, the accused-non-petitioner Shyam Sunder handed over bus bearing registration No. RRM 5105 to the complainant-petitioner, and an agreement was also executed. Then, on 31. 8. 90 at about 6 PM accused non-petitioner accompanied with two-three persons came to the petitioner's house and wanted to take back the aforesaid bus No. RRM 5105 on the assurance of returning the part payment amount of Rs. 85,000/ -. However, the petitioner refused to oblige them and the aforesaid bus was not allowed to be taken. Lastly it was alleged that on the same day when the aforesaid bus was standing at Bus Stand, Kekri, the accused non-peiitioner took away the said bus No. RRM 5105 without the consent or permission of the petitioner and the petitioner came to know about this fact next day in the morning at about 6 AM, when he went to the Bus Stand and did not find the aforesaid bus there It was further alleged that the complainant-petitioner and his family members went to Toda, in search of the bus, and they found that the aforesaid bus was standing at the Petrol Pump of accused non-petitioner Shyam Sunder.
(3.) AFTER registration, the police seized the aforesaid bus bearing No. RRM 5105 on 3. 9. 90 at Bus Stand of Todaraisingh. The police recorded the statement of various persons and also seized certain documents which were submitted by the parties. In the course of the investigation, the complainant- petitioner, as well as, the accused non-petitioner Shyam Sunder moved separate applications for the delivery of the said bus. The learned Magistrate vide his order dated 14. 9. 90 directed that the said bus should be handed over in the custody of the petitioner on such terms and conditions which were mentioned in the said order. Aggrieved against the said order, non-petitioner Shyam Sunder filed a revision petition which was heard and disposed of by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Beawar, who reversed the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate and directed the Trial Court to get the bus back from petitioner and gave in Supurdgi of non-petitioner Shyam Sunder. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the complainant-petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. ;