Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1984 DIGILAW 370 (ALL)

R. K. JAISWAL v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHAND

1984-05-01

K.C.AGRAWAL

body1984
K. C. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) THESE two connected cases raise common questions, hence, can be disposed of by means of a single judgment. ( 2 ) THE dispute in the present case is with regard to Truck No. U. T. V. 786. This truck originally belonged to Mohd. Moesa who sold it to Govind Das and Raghundan Singh on October 1, 1982. On the application of these persons, their names were entered in the office of the Regional Transport Officer and registration papers were issued in their favour. Raghundan Singh transferred his share of the vehicle to Govind Das. As a consequence of this transfer, the name of Govind Das alone was registered in the office of the Regional Transport Officer. Subsequently, a dispute arose between Dhan Singh and Daulat Ram on the one hand, and Dr. R. K. Jaiswal, on the other hand. What happened actually was that a first information report was lodged by Dr. R. K. Jaiswal, under Sections 406/420 Indian Penal Code against Dhan Singh and Daulat Ram. It was alleged by Dr. R. K. Jaiswal that be bad purchased the vehicle from Govind Das and for that purpose, had also obtained his affidavit. But subsequently, possession bad been unlawfully passed on to Daulat Ram and Dhan Singh. The vehicle was taken custody of by the police. ( 3 ) UPON the custody being given to the police, Dr. R. K. Jaiswal applied under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for custody of the truck. A similar prayer was made by Dhan Singh and Daulat Ram. Dhan Singh and Daulat Ram alleged that they had purchased the truck and by virtue of that purchase, their names were entered as owners in the office of the Regional Transport Officer and registration papers were issued to them. The case of Dr. R. K. Jaiswal, as stated, was that he had purchased the truck from Govind Das who issued a sale letter on 19. 1. 1983. Govind Das had also sworn an affidavit before the Notary on the same date and had promised that after the payment of the taxes, and obtaining the certificate of fit ness of the truck, be would issue the transfer letter in favour of Dr. RK. Jaiswal. Dr. R. K. Jaiswal alleged that on 1. 9. 1. 1983. Govind Das had also sworn an affidavit before the Notary on the same date and had promised that after the payment of the taxes, and obtaining the certificate of fit ness of the truck, be would issue the transfer letter in favour of Dr. RK. Jaiswal. Dr. R. K. Jaiswal alleged that on 1. 9. 83 Govind Das had signed a letter meant for the above purpose for being sent to the office of the Regional Transport Officer to get the name of Dr. R. K. Jaiswal registered but it was later on gathered that Daulat Ram, the brother of Govind Das, and Dhan Singh, father of Govind Das, bad started laying their claim in collusion with Govind Das. ( 4 ) THE Chief Judicial Magistrate, instead of releasing the track in favour of either of the two parties, directed it to be kept in the custody of the police of P. S. Nawabad, Jhansi by directing that the same would be given to the party which ultimately gets an order for the said purpose from a competent civil court. This led to the filing of the two revisions; one by Dr. R. K. Jaiswal and the other by Daulat Ram and Dhan Singh. ( 5 ) THE learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and directed the possession of the truck to be given to Dhan Singh and Daulat Ram. He held that the truck, if so directed to be kept in the police custody, was likely to get deteriorated and that would not be in the interest of either of the two parties. The learned Sessions Judge further found that as out of the two parties, mentioned above, Dhan Singh and Daulat Ram had a better right, they were entitled to get the truck under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by this order, the present revision had been filed by Dr. R. K. Jaiswal. As he entertained a doubt about the maintainability of the revision, he filed the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge. ( 7 ) THE first thing which may be considered is the provision to be applicable for making an order for delivery of possession. ( 7 ) THE first thing which may be considered is the provision to be applicable for making an order for delivery of possession. The Sessions Judge had made the impunged order under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. To me, the learned Sessions Judge appears to be wrong in doing so. Section 451 applies to a case where there is an enquiry or trial pending. In the instant case, at the stage of making of the application by the two parties, no enquiry or trial was pending before the Magistrate. Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, was not applicable. The other relevant provision is section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which lays down that whenever the seizure of the property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of the Code, and such property is not produced before a criminal court, during an enquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property on such conditions as he may think fit. Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was enacted on the basis of the recommendations of the Law Commission made in its Forty First Report recommending revision of Section 523. The relevant portion of the Report reads: It would, therefore, be better if Section 523 (1) generally referred to all cases where the seizure of the property by a police officer is reported to a Magistrate and not only the seizure under Sections 51 and 550. Where such property is produced before any Criminal Court during enquiry or trial, it will be dealt with under Sections 516- A and 522 (Sections 451 and 456 now ). It was on the basis of these recommendations of the Law Commission, that Section 457 was enacted. 1 ( 8 ) IN State of Mysore v. Luxmi Trading Company , the Mysore High Court held that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 516-A of the Old Code to pass any order regarding disposal of the property, which has been detained in custody pending investigation before commencement of the enquiry or trial. 1 ( 8 ) IN State of Mysore v. Luxmi Trading Company , the Mysore High Court held that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 516-A of the Old Code to pass any order regarding disposal of the property, which has been detained in custody pending investigation before commencement of the enquiry or trial. ( 9 ) IN A. Kamaluddin v. Abdul Saleem, the Kerala High Court held that when the police seized the property during investigation and the enquiry or trial has not commenced, order for disposal of the property should be made under Section 523 (1), and not under Section 516-A of the Old Code. ( 10 ) IN view of what I have said above, it appears that Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies only when an enquiry or trial is pending in the Court, and Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to a case where no enquiry or trial is pending. In my view, therefore the learned Sessions Judge could pass the order under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 11 ) COMING to the merits, the learned Sessions Judge held that since the names of Dhan Singh and Dault Ram were recorded in the registration papers, the truck be released in their favour. Without the registration, Dr. R. K. Jaiswal, who lays his claim on the basis of an affidavit and other papers, would not be entitled to ply the vehicle. In the instant case, the truck was rightly released in favour of Dhan Singh and Daulat Ram in whose names the registration certificate stood in preference to Dr. R. K. Jaiswal in view of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. Permitting Dr. R. K. Jaiswal to use the vehicle would be not only in violation of the conditions of the permit, but also against the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, it is the person whose name is recorded in the registration certificate that will be held liable for the breach of the Act and for payment of compensation. In these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge seems to be right in releasing the vehicle in favour of the persons named above. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, it is the person whose name is recorded in the registration certificate that will be held liable for the breach of the Act and for payment of compensation. In these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge seems to be right in releasing the vehicle in favour of the persons named above. He was right in his view that leaving the vehicle in the custody of the police would not be in the interest of either of the two parties. ( 12 ) SHRI K. N. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for Dr. R. K. Jaiswal, submitted that as the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was an inter-locutory one, no revision lay to the Sessions Judge against the same. To me, it does not appear to be so. The order finally disposed of the application for custody of the truck. Assuming that the argument of the learned counsel is correct, I would not like to interfere in this case as by passing of the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has done something which is eminently just and correct. ( 13 ) IN the result, Criminal Revision No. 2473 of 1983 as well as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 10793 of 1983 are dismissed. The stay order is discharged. Petition dismissed. .