SHARMA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this petition may be stated below: The petitioner had purchased a Jeep bearing No. RJ 18g 2081 on hire purchased basis from some finance company. The registration of the Jeep stands in his name. The respondent No. 1 who was earlier driver on the said jeep requested the petitioner on 17. 3. 2004 to hand over the said jeep to him for a day and that he will return the same on the next day. The petitioner believing on the words of respondent No. 1, gave him the said jeep for a day. When the petitioner asked him to return the jeep, the respondent No. 1 refused to return the same and accordingly the petitioner lodged a report against him, whereupon, the police registered a case for offence under Section 406 IPC. In the course of investigation, the police recovered the vehicle and seized the papers including driving licence of the petitioner from the possession of respondent No. 1. In the course of investigation, both the parties moved applications for interim custody of the vehicle before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate declined the request of petitioner and respondent No. 1 both on the ground that investigation was in progress. The police completed investigation and having found prima facie case of criminal breach of trust filed a charge sheet against respondent No. 1 for offence under under Section 406 IPC.
(3.) THEREAFTER the petitioner and respondent No. 1 again moved separate applications for custody of vehicle before the Trial Court. The learned Magistrate after considering the material available before it, ordered custody of the vehicle to the delivered to respondent No. 1, vide its order dated 30. 4. 2004. The petitioner challenged the order of the Magistrate in revision petition before the court of Sessions. The learned revisional court affirmed the order of the Magistrate and dismissed the revision petition vide its order dated 7. 7. 2004. Hence the present petition. The learned Magistrate in its order has noticed the conclusion of investigation, according to which the investigation officer, after recording the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C. , found the offence under Section 406 IPC established against accused Ranveer and drawn conclusion to the effect that had the vehicle been been purchased in partnership and had there been any decision in the village meeting, the accused would not have absconded, rather he would have presented himself at the police station and would have submitted his defence. It has also been noticed that "accused has not been able to produce any document, which could show that vehicle was purchased in partnership". Hence at the conclusion of investigation the police has found accused Ranveer guilty of offence under Sec. 406 IPC. As stated above, both the parties have claimed custody of the seized vehicle on the claims as set out in their respective applications filed under Sec. 451/457 Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate considered the evidence and material collected during trial and arrived at a conclusion that admittedly, as per the registration certificate, petitioner Mahesh Kumar alone is the registered owner of the seized vehicle. Likewise, it is also an admitted fact that police during investigation has seized the vehicle and its original documents from the possession of respondent Ranveer. According to the learned Magistrate, accused respondent Ranveer was in legal possession of the vehicle. From the order it appears that the learned Magistrate has critically analysed the statements of few witnesses recorded during investigation and recorded a finding that it does not transpire from the statements of witnesses that accused respondent has committed criminal breach of trust, inasmuch as all the witnesses state about the vehicle in question having been purchased in partnership, being plied in partnership and that petitioner had assured respondent Ranveer to pay him a sum of Rs. 1,42,000/ -. According to the learned Magistrate, none of the witnesses has stated that respondent had demanded that vehicle and took it away and thus has committed criminal breach of trust. In the opinion of the court, the grounds on which the investigating officer has disbelieved the statements of witnesses cannot at this stage be said to be logical and maintainable. The Investigating Officer has not been able to collect any evidence on record to prima facie show that no panchayat meeting took place on 15. 3. 2004 in village Doomara, rather the evidence paroves that such meeting had convened. Lastly, the learned Magistrate concluded that since the seized vehicle was in legal possession of respondent Ranveer, it does not fall within the purview of `stolen property' as defined in Section 410 IPC. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of provisions of Sec. 410 IPC, the learned Magistrate concluded that the seized vehicle does not fall within the category of stolen property as accused Ranveer being in legal possession. ;