Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 469 (RAJ)

Girraj Prasad Saini v. State of Rajasthan

2000-04-19

S.C.MITAL

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 28.2.2000 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat in Crl. Revision No. 7/2000 whereby the revision petition was dismissed confirming the order dated 18.2.2000 of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran. The revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.2.2000 of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran as above whereby the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate refused to release the truck No. RJ 02/G 0727 on superdinama to the petitioner. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the said truck was involved in an accident and was seized in 34/2000 P.S. Raipur. The truck is registered in the name of the father of the petitioner Sh. Ram Kumar Saini. The petitioner's case is that Sh. Ram Kumar Saini is missing since 30th June, 1995. He was a mentally unsound person. He could not be traced despite best efforts and a report was lodged in the P.S. Rajgarh Dist. Alwar on 8.7.1995. The petitioner, Shanti Devi mother, Bhagwan Sahai and Hari Kishan brothers are the legal representatives of Ram Kumar Saini who also gave an affidavit that Sh. Ram Kumar Saini is missing being mentally unsound and authorised the petitioner to receive the truck on superdginama. The petitioner Giriraj Saini filed an application before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran to take the vehicle on superdginama which was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not the registered owner of the vehicle. The petitioner's father, even if missing, seven years have not passed therefore a presumption cannot be drawn that Sh. Ram Kumar Saini has died. This fact cannot be accepted even on the basis of the affidavit filed by the legal representatives. The petitioner and the legal legal representatives did not take any steps before the registration authority to have their name transferred in the registration certificate. The petitioner filed a revision petition but his contention did not prevail even before the learned lower court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is entitled to possession of the truck on the ground that he is the son of the registered owner Shri Ram Kumar Saini. Mother and other brothers have executed a Mukhtiarnama in favour of petitioner to receive the truck on superdginama. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is entitled to possession of the truck on the ground that he is the son of the registered owner Shri Ram Kumar Saini. Mother and other brothers have executed a Mukhtiarnama in favour of petitioner to receive the truck on superdginama. It is also prima facie made out that Sh. Ram Kumar Saini is not traceable and a report to this effect has been lodged at the police station. It is further argued that under section 457 Cr. P.C. it is not even necessary that a person entitled to possession of truck must necessarily have registration of the vehicle in his favour. Learned trial court has therefore failed in exercising the jurisdiction which has resulted in manifest injustice and abuse of process of the court. 4. Learned Public Prosecution has contended that seven years have not passed and therefore it cannot be presumed that the registered owner of the truck Ram Kumar Saini has died. In view of this matter, the learned courts below have come to the conclusion that he was the appropriate person and entitled to possession of the truck. In the facts and circumstances therefore, the application has been rightly dismissed. 5. I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions. It is an admitted position that the truck is registered in the name of Sh. Ram Kumar Saini. Ram Kumar Saini is the father of the petitioner. Other brothers and wife of Sh. Ram Kumar Saini have executed `Mukhtiarnama' in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner has been authorised to receive the truck on superdinama. Sh. Ram Kumar Saini was a person of unsound mind and he is missing for which a report was lodged at P.S. Rajgarh Dist. Alwar. there was no material on the side of the prosecution to controvert these facts by way of any document or counter affidavits. The truck is now lying in the PS. Raipur for more than two months which is not required in investigation. There was no other rival claimant for possession. In the above facts and circumstances, 1 am clearly of the view that the petitioner is entitled to possession of the truck under section 457 Cr.P.C. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 28.2.2000 as well as 18.2.2000 are not sustainable in the interest of justice. 6. There was no other rival claimant for possession. In the above facts and circumstances, 1 am clearly of the view that the petitioner is entitled to possession of the truck under section 457 Cr.P.C. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 28.2.2000 as well as 18.2.2000 are not sustainable in the interest of justice. 6. Resultantly, this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The application for taking superdginama filed by Giri Raj Saini is hereby allowed and learned trial court is directed to give the truck No. RJ02/G 0727 on superdginama to the petitioner Giri Raj Saini on the conditions imposed by the learned trial court it the earliest.Petition allowed. *******