- (1.) Invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.9.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 5th, Palamau whereby, the impugned order dated 1.12.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau in G.R. No. 1180 of 2004 releasing the seized vehicle in favour of the opposite party no. 2, was affirmed. The petitioner has also challenged the impugned order dated 1.12.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau on the ground that the same has been passed erroneously without proper application of judicial mind and without appreciating the facts of the case.
(2.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as also the counsel for the State.
(3.) From the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, jist of the grounds advanced by him assailing the impugned orders passed by the Revisional Court as also that of the CJM, are as follows: i. That the vehicle being a commander jeep bearing registration no. HR 29D-0997 was admittedly seized from the possession of the petitioner and on a misconceived notion, case under section 379 IPC was registered against the petitioner and he was remanded to judicial custody. ii. While the petitioner was in custody, prayer for release of the seized vehicle was made before the CJM by the opposite party no. 2. A report was called for from the police and on the basis of the report and without granting any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard, the impugned order for releasing the vehicle in favour of the opposite party no. 2, was passed by the CJM. iii. The order of release was passed without appreciation of the fact that the seized vehicle bore a different registration number other than what was claimed by the opposite party no. 2 in his theft report which was BR-29-7571 and not HR-26D-0997. Furthermore, the vehicle which was seized from the possession of the petitioner, was purchased by him on 17th July 2002 whereas, the theft report filed by the opposite party no. 2 in respect of his vehicle, was of 5.4.2003. iv. Police report does not confirm as to the identity of the vehicle belonging to the opposite party no. 2 which is claimed to have been stolen as the same vehicle which was seized from the petitioner and without appreciating the fact that the identity of the vehicle in itself was disputed and the petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle, the impugned order for release of the vehicle was erroneously passed in favour of the opposite party no. 2.;