Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1981 DIGILAW 537 (RAJ)

Allarakh : Asgar Ali v. State : State

1981-12-07

M.B.SHARMA

body1981
JUDGMENT 1. - Both the miscellaneous petitions arise out of the same order of the learned Magistrate and, therefore, can be conveniently disposed of by a common order. Looking to the controversy involved, I had sent for the record and I am of the opinion that both the petitions can be disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of these petitions are these: Asgar Ali was the registered owner of truck No. RJZ 1871 and chassis No. of the said truck was 312056, 1602344. The said Asgar Ali was in need of some finances and, therefore, he is said to have got the truck financed from Rathore Finance Corporation, Sojat Road, Pali and Rs. 17,500/- were taken under the hire purchase agreement. Allarakh was the guarantor for the payment of Rs. 17,500/- by Shri Asgar Ali, It is alleged that few instalments could not be paid and, therefore, the aforesaid truck was given to Allarakh under an oral agreement that Allarakh will pay Rs. 200/- per day till such time as the entire loan of the financier is wiped off. It is said that the entire loan was paid off and, therefore in order to deprive Asgar Ali of the truck and its income, Allarakh got the chassis No. and Engine No. erased writ changed and gave out that he has purchased the truck from one Avtarsingh, who in turn, had purchased it from army disposal, and he got fresh registration certificate of the truck from the R.T.O., Jodhpur. The R.T.O. assigned registration No. RSN 2898. Asgar Ali filed a report before the R.T.O. who deputed one Prahalad, Transport Inspector, to make an enquiry into the matter and the Transport Inspector, after enquiry, reported that there were erasers on the chassis No. and engine No. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against Allarakh under Section 420, 467 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. The truck was seized and it is lying in the custody of the police for more than 11/2 year. Earlier also, two applications for the custody of the truck were filed: one by Asgar Ali and the other by Allarakh but the learned Magistrate disallowed both the applications and this Court, at that stage, refused to interfere and directed the parties to move afresh in the light of the material which may be available. Earlier also, two applications for the custody of the truck were filed: one by Asgar Ali and the other by Allarakh but the learned Magistrate disallowed both the applications and this Court, at that stage, refused to interfere and directed the parties to move afresh in the light of the material which may be available. Both the parties again filed applications for the custody of the truck under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate has again dismissed both the applications. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Singhvi submits that there is absolutely no material on record to connect truck No.RSN 2898 with Truck No. RJZ 1871, He submits that from the report of the Director of Forensic Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur, as well as from the information furnished by Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. under its letter dated August 8, 1980; it is very well established that the chassis No. of the truck is 312056, 5615832 and the Engine No. is 312915, 5616325. Mr. Rathore, on the other hand, contents that from the report of the Director of Forensic Laboratory, it can be said that there are erasers on the chassis No. as well as engine No. and, therefore, it cannot be said that Allarakh is entitled to the possession of the truck. 4. Allarakh is the registered owner of the truck No. RSN 2896. Prima facie, there appears to be material that a lorry 3 ton, 4X2 TMB was purchased from the Director General of Supplies and Disposal by one Avtar singh for Rs. 43,300/-.Its chassis No., is 312056, 5115832 and engine No. 312915, 5616325; the same numbers with which the truck had been registered in the name of Allarakh. It also appears that when Allarakh, after having purchased it from Avtarsingh, who has not been traced but by the police, brought the truck in Rajasthan, he paid Rs. 98/- as tax under a receipt which is on record. 5. Even the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, in his report, on deciphering the numbers, has observed that the original chassis No. could be 312656, 701489. 98/- as tax under a receipt which is on record. 5. Even the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, in his report, on deciphering the numbers, has observed that the original chassis No. could be 312656, 701489. Thus, though it can be said that there appears to be some erasers on the chassis No. and engine No., but it is not possible to say, for the present, that before the erasers, the chassis No. and engine No. were the same as claimed by Asgar Ali. The truck is lying in the open in the custody of the police for the last 11/2 years and as is a common knowledge, it might have become a scrap by now because there is no proper arrangement for the safety of the truck while in the custody of the police. 6. I will, therefore, allow S.H. Civil Misc. Application No. 309 of 1981 by Allarakh and dismiss the application No. 374/81 filed by Asgar Ali I hereby direct that the truck shall be given in the custody of Allarakh, provided he furnishes a Supurdnama for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of the State, in the trial court, under-taking to keep the truck intact in the present condition and to produce the same in court as and when required to do so. In the event of his failure to do so, the amount of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) will be liable to be confiscated to the State. To do justice to both the parties, I hereby order that this order shall remain in abeyance for a month so that Asgar Ali, if he so likes, may go to a civil court to get any order.Application Allowed. *******