Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 843 (RAJ)

Madan Lal v. State

1995-09-13

N.C.KOCHHAR

body1995
Honble KOCHHAR, J. – Since this petition and SB Cr.Misc. Petition No. 1021/94 "Ram Narayan Meena vs. State of Rajasthan" (the other case) arise out of the order dated 8.9.1995,passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6 Jaipur City, Jaipur, rejecting the application of the petitioner Madan Lal of this case and the application of petitioner Ram Narayan Meena of the other case, both of them are being disposed of by this order. The facts giving rise to these petitions, filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) are as under:– (2). Maruti Car registered as RJ 14-1C-0863 (the car in question) and a tractor (Messy Fargusan) registered as RJ 14-3690 ( the tractor in question) were taken into custody by the police in case FIR No. 194/94 of Police Station, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur. The said case was registered against Shri Sajjan Singh, the Managing Director of M/S Ex-Fort Agro Finance Co. Ltd.(the company). According to the case of the police, the Managing Director of the company had taken away huge money belonging to various depositors and the car and tractor in question had been purchased from the funds supplied by the company. The petitioner, who claims to have purchased the car in question after obtaining loan from the company and the petitioner of the other case, who claims to have purchased the tractor in question after obtaining loan from the company, moved applications for taking the vehicles in question on superdari.The learned trial court, vide the impugned order dated 8.9.1995, has dismissed their applications on the ground that the vehicles in question had been purchased from the public funds and, as such, could not be given to the petitioners applicants, who claim to be their registered owners. (3). As noted above, the case of the petitioners is that they had purchased the vehicles in question after obtaining loan from the company and they are the registered owners thereof. It has not been disputed before me that the petitioner concerned was in possession of the vehicle in question before it was seized by the police in the abovesaid case. There is no allegation that either of the two petitioners had committed any offence in respect of the vehicles in question. (4). It has not been disputed before me that the petitioner concerned was in possession of the vehicle in question before it was seized by the police in the abovesaid case. There is no allegation that either of the two petitioners had committed any offence in respect of the vehicles in question. (4). Section 457 of the Code provides that if the property seized by the police is produced before the court, the court has to pass an order for disposal of the property as may be thought fit and if the person is found entitled to the possession thereof he may be given the property of superdari. The only enquiry that can be made by a criminal court, thus, is restricted to the finding of the person who is entitled to the possession of the property in question, and the court is not empowered to go into the title thereof. (5). It is now well settled that a person from whose possession the property is recovered is the one who has to be held to be entitled to the possession thereof unless there is material to show that he has committed an offence in respect of the property which is the subject matter of enquiry .In the present case, each of the two petitioners has claimed to have purchased the vehicle in question after obtaining loan from the company and has also claimed to be the registered owner thereof. Taking of loan from a company whose Managing Director may have com- mitted fraud on the public at large cannot be said to be the commission of any offence in respect of the vehicle in question. The vehicles in questions cannot be left in the custody of the police and in open sun, rain and atmospheric condition and there is no reason why the applicants-petitioners who are the registered owners of the vehicles in question should be deprived of the benefit of using the same. (6). I am of the view that the learned trial court ignored the abovesaid factors in dismissing the application of each one of the applicants-petitioners and, if the order passed by the learned trial court is not set aside, the petitioners would suffer loss and it will be great injustice to them. (7). (6). I am of the view that the learned trial court ignored the abovesaid factors in dismissing the application of each one of the applicants-petitioners and, if the order passed by the learned trial court is not set aside, the petitioners would suffer loss and it will be great injustice to them. (7). Consequently, I allow both these petitions, set aside the impugned order passed by the learned trial court on 8-9-1995 and direct that the Maruti Car No. RJ 14-1C-0863 be given on superdari to the petitioner-Madan Lal on his executing a superdginam in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs only) and tractor (Messy Fargusan) No. RJ 14-3690 be given on superdari to Ram Narayan Meena, the petitioner of the other case on his executing the Superdaginama for the same amount. Both the petitions stand disposed of accodingly.