Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 369 (PAT)

Shyam Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2000-03-06

P.K.DEB

body2000
Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 19.3.1996 passes by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in Kurtha P.S. Case No. 168 of 1995 whereby the seized truck in the abovementioned criminal case has been ordered to be released in favour of one Purushottam Kumar set up by opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 who are accused in that case. 2. The petitioner-informant filed the abovementioned case on the allegation that the truck in question number being BEA 8935 was sold by the informant petitioner to opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 on hire-purchase agreement and it was arrived at between the parties that instalment should be paid at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- but according to the informant-petitioner, opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 defaulted in paying the instalments and on search the vehicle could not be found and the same became traceless. After words on one occasion while informant was moving through Jehanabad area on his truck he could find the truck in question was being run and as such he seized the same and informed the police. Thereafter the truck was seized and during the course of seizure the truck was found to be numbered as BR-36/1711. Both petitioners and opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 claimed the truck by filing petitions but on the petition filed for and on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 the truck was released in favour of son-in-law of opposite party No. 2 Purushottam Kumar. The petition filed on behalf oi the petitioner did not contain the chesis number and other details of the truck but the same was given by Purushottam Prasad (Kumar). A report was called for on the basis of rival claims being made by the parties and the police reported that the number of the vehicle was being changed and registration was made at Godda. A report was called for from Godda also. The report awaited then the orders were passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after hearing both the parties and the report was given from the side of the investigating agency. It may be mentioned here that after closure of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. A report was called for from Godda also. The report awaited then the orders were passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after hearing both the parties and the report was given from the side of the investigating agency. It may be mentioned here that after closure of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. It further appears from the case-diary that the report was received from the District Transport Officer, Godda wherein it was specifically mentioned that the registration was made there and change in the number of chesis etc. have been made and as such on the basis of the such report the claim of the petitioner regarding sale of the truck in question to opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 on hire-purchase agreement was found to be prima facie true and as such charge-sheet has been submitted. 3. From the side of the petitioner as no explanation could be given as regards change of numbers of the truck chesis and engine etc., the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has ordered for release of the truck in favour of Purushottam Kumar set up by opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. Against that order the present petition has been filed. 4. At the stage of admission itself, notices were issued to opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 but they refused to accept notice, then this petition was admitted and again notices were issued to them but they did not appear. The impugned order has also been stayed by a Bench of this Court at the admission stage itself and it pre-supposes that the seized truck is now in the custody of the police and investigating agency. 5. In view of the report being received from the District Transport Officer, Godda and no counter-claim has been made before this Court by opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 and when a prima facie case of the petitioner was found to be true and there is prima facie case to the effect that separate registration has been made at Godda by changing the number and physical feature of the truck, the impugned order is quashed and the truck in question may be released in favour of the petitioner-informant on proper security as ordered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned but it is made clear that while asking for security, no cash security or bank guarantee can be asked.