A.C. Goyal, J. - (1.) The facts giving rise to this petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. in brief are that one tractor No. HR 05/C -2675 (Chasis No. A -86699 and Engine No. i 5073) was seized by the police from the possession of the petitioner Shri Munna Lal on account of non possession of some relevant documents of the vehicle under Sec. 207, Motor Vehicles Act. Shri Munna Lal pleaded guilty on 10.7.2000. In the meantime, two applications for possession of this tractor -one by Shri Munna Lal and the other by Shri Nanika, non -petitioner No.2 were filed in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Dholpur. After hearing the learned Magistrate in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.592/99 gave this tractor on Supurdgenama of Rs.3 lacks to Shri Nanika vide order dated 10.7.2000. Criminal Revision No.87/2000 filed by Shri Munna Lal was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur. vide order dated 12.10.2000. Hence, this petition.
(2.) It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he purchased this tractor from one Balveer Singh on 20.10,1994 vide one sale letter, though the registration could not be transferred in favour of the petitioner and secondly, this tractor was seized by the police from the possession of the petitioner, hence, possession of the tractor should have been delivered to the petitioner. It was next argued that both the courts below delivered this tractor to the non -petitioner No.2 deciding the title of this tractor, while under Sec. 452 Cr. P.C. on title could not have been decided. Reliance has been placed on, (1998) 8 SCC 772. wherein it has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court that the High Court has separate powers under Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. and the court has to distinguish its separate powers under Sec. 397 as also under Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. and as such proceedings are open to scrutiny by the High Court under Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. This judgment is cited in reply to the arguments of learned counsel for the non -petitioner No.2 that since the revision was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, this petition is not maintainable. Another judgment relied upon is, 1996 WLC (Rai) UC 479, wherein it is held by Rajasthan High Court that though the petitioner was not registered owner of the truck seized under Sec. 207 M. V. Act, the petitioner otherwise in lawful possession of the vehicle is entitled to possession at the time of seizure of the vehicle leaving title to be decided by the civil court. Similar view has been taken by this Court in, RCC 1998 602. In yet another judgment reported in, 1997 Cri. L.R. (Raj.)23. it is held by this court that the Magistrate had no power to go into the question of title while giving the possession of the tractor seized. In, RLW 1999(2) Raj.799, it was held that registration of vehicle is not a condition precedent for transferring its ownership to the transferee and the vehicle can be delivered to the real owner. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in : 2001 Cri LJ 3024.
(3.) Per contra learned counsel for the non -petitioner No.2 contended that there is no illegality in the orders passed by both the courts below and it was necessary to decide under Sec. 452 Cr. P.C. that who was entitled to possession of the vehicle and Shri Nanika purchased this vehicle from the registered owner and the order of the learned Magistrate was passed after inquiry.;