M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) BY this application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the common order dated 25.1.2007 passed by sessions Judge, Dumka in Cr. Revision Nos. 46 of 2006 and 48 of 2006 whereby he has set aside the order dated 7.10.2006 passed by S.D.J.M., Dumka under Section 451 Cr.P.C. in G.R. Case No. 840/06 (T.R. Case No. 2084/06) and directed for release of the vehicle in favour of the Financier M/s Ashok Lee Land Finance Ltd. It appears that the vehicle in question was financed by Ashok Lee Land Finance Ltd. in favour of the petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Singh. The vehicle was in possession of driver namely Munna Mandal at the time of occurrence and the driver was allegedly put in possession of the vehicle by one Madan Kumar Mandal who claimed to be owner of the vehicle. It was alleged that at the time of occurrence, petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Singh snatched the vehicle from Munna Mandal for which a criminal case was instituted. The police submitted charge -sheet against the petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Singh. It revealed during investigation that petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Singh took the vehicle on hire - purchase agreement from Ashok Lee Land Finance Ltd. and as per hire -purchase agreement the petitioner had to pay the price of the vehicle in instalments. In due course, the petitioner transferred the vehicle in favour of Madan Kumar Mandal. After submission of charge -sheet, cognizance was taken. Thereafter, petitions were filed both by Sanjeev Kumar Singh and Madan Kumar Mandal and also by the Financier of the vehicle for release of the vehicle. All the three petitions were heard by S.D.J.M., Dumka, who passed the order for release of the vehicle in favour of petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Singh. Against the impugned order passed by the S.D.J.M., both Madan Kumar Mandal and the Ashok Lee Land Finance Ltd. filed criminal revisions being Criminal Revision Nos. 46 of 2006 and 48 of 2006. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the entire facts of the case, set aside the order passed by the S. D.J.M. and held that M/s Ashok Lee Land Finance Ltd. is entitled to have the interim custody of the seized vehicle.
(3.) THE facts which are not in dispute are that the vehicle in question was given to the petitioner under the hire -purchase agreement by M/s Ashok Lee Land Finance Ltd. The petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Singh said to have transferred the vehicle to Madan Kumar Mandal. It is also not in dispute that the entire price of the vehicle, which was payable in instalments, has not been paid to the Financier.;