GOYAL, J. - (1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed against the judgment dated 25. 5. 2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bayana (Bharatpur) whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners, was dismissed.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners filed an application under Section 451, 457 Cr. P. C. for the custody of tractor bearing registration No. RJ-05-2r-1213, which was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate, Vair (Bharatpur) and the application filed by the respondent No. 2 - Ram Roop, for the custody of said tractor, was allowed. Against the order dated 29. 4. 2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Vair, revision petition was preferred by the petitioners, which was dismissed by the revisional Court vide impugned judgment. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and other material made available during the arguments. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the tractor in dispute was sold on 22. 6. 2004 by respondent No. 2 - Ram Roop, to the present petitioners on the consideration of Rs. 2,60,000/- and possession was handedover to them. Later on, respondent No. 2 - Ram Roop, being swayed by his relatives, registered FIR against the petitioners narrating wrong facts. It is also contended that when respondent No. 2 - Ram Roop, did not fulfill the terms and conditions of the sale agreement, and was not prepared to complete the formalities regarding change of name in the registration certificate, a suit was filed by the petitioners, which is still pending before the competent civil court. It is also submitted that since the tractor was seized by the police from the possession of petitioner, it ought to have been given in interim custody to the petitioners. Reliance has been placed on Jhandel vs. State of Rajasthan (2004 (2) RCC 993), wherein custody of the tractor was allowed to the person from whose possession it was seized. In Makhan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2004 (1) RCC 500), co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that title was not of much significance while giving custody of the vehicle under Section 451 Cr. P. C. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 - Ram Roop, contended that no second revision is maintainable by virtue of specific bar provided under Section 397 (3) Cr. P. C. , therefore, the present petition which is virtually a second revision under the heading of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is not maintainable. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajan Kumar Machananda vs. State of Karnataka (1990 Cr. L. R. (SC) 602), wherein it was held that by virtue of bar of Section 397 (3) Cr. P. C. , inherent powers under Section 482 cannot be exercised. It was further held that merely by saying that the jurisdiction of High Court for exercise of its inherent power was being invoked, the statutory bar could not have been overcome. If that was to be permitted, every revision application facing the bar of Section 397 (23) of the code could be labelled as one under Section 482. It was then contended on behalf of respondent No. 2 Ram Roop that he is an old man of 82 years, and according to the suit filed by the petitioners, he is incapable because of his ill- health. It is also submitted that respondent No. 2 never sold the tractor to petitioners who are his close relatives, and with a view to grab his entire property the petitioners alongwith their mother-in-law Kamoda, who is the daughter of respondent No. 2 Ram Roop, prepared some forged documents in regard to the tractor in dispute and agricultural land of respondent No. 2 Ram Roop. It is also contended that the petitioners were never in lawful possession over the tractor in dispute, of which respondent No. 2 Ram Roop, it the registered owner with lawful possession, therefore, interim custody of the tractor was rightly given to him. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2002 SCC (Cri) 1099), wherein it was held that it is more advisable to entrust the vehicle to the registered owner on behalf of the Court under certain conditions. In Shiv Dan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1996 Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 265), it was held that interim custody of the vehicle was well given to the registered owner.
(3.) I have considered the rival submissions. From a perusal of the impugned judgment it transpires that the application for interim custody of the tractor in dispute filed by the petitioners under Sections 451 and 457 Cr. P. C. , was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate, Vair and the application of respondent No. 2 Ram Roop, for interim custody of the said tractor, was allowed, against which petitioners preferred revision petition under Section 396 Cr. P. C. before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bayana, which was also dismissed, against which this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed. Keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajan Kumar Machananda's case (supra), present petition is virtually a second revision petition under the heading of Section 482 Cr. P. C. Therefore, by virtue of the specific bar provided under Section 397 (3) Cr. P. C. this second revision petition is not maintainable. Otherwise also it is admitted case of the petitioners that a civil suit is pending before the competent civil court in regard to the tractor in dispute. So far merits of the case is concerned, learned Judicial Magistrate, Vair as well as learned revisional Court were prima facie of the view that he sale agreement of the tractor in dispute is not genuine and as such the petitioners were not in lawful possession over the same. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to be interfered by this Court. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed. .;