JUDGMENT 1. - This is a criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sanganer which he passed on 14-12-1999 and dismissed the application of petitioner for handing over possession of Jeep No. RJ14-IC-7539 in relation to F.I.R. No. 357/99 and allowed the application of Sint. Tankamma to hand over possession of the vehicle to her on Supurdaginama. 2. It is alleged by the petitioner that the said jeep was in the name of Surendra Bhargava who authorised Gopal Lal Sharma by way of power of attorney to sell the said vehicle. The petitioner had purchased the vehicle from Gopal Lal Sharma through an agreement and Surendra Bhargava signed a blank sale letter in favour of the petitioner and also handed over the original papers to him. Since the vehicle was financed by the financier Jain Auto Finance Company, therefore, the vehicle could not be transferred in his name. When the vehicle was seized by the police, the blank sale letter was lying in the vehicle. Smt. Tankamma, respondent No. 2 had lodged a report No. 357/99 alleging that she retired on 31-3-1997. Mohan Lal was living in her neighbourhood who knew that Smt. Tankamma was having substantial amount and advised that also may purchase a jeep which he will arrange for him and the same would be looked after by him. Smt. Tankamma believing him, purchased Jeep No. RJ 14-IC-7539 which was handed over to her on 9-6-1999. It was Mohan Lal and his relation Gopal Singh who were driving the jeep from 9-6-1999 to 17-8-1999. Mohan Lal did not give any amount as an earning from the jeep to her, therefore, on 17-8-1999 she kept the jeep at her residence. It was further stated in the first information report that Mohan Lal handed over a sale letter executed by Surendra Bhargava on 9-6-1999 but Mohan Lal did not account for the money earned from the jeep till 19-8-1999. Consequently, she handed over the jeep to Vikram Singh so that some amount may be earned from it. She was out to Alwar. On 4-10-1999 she returned. Vikram Singh told her that his brother was driving the jeep and Mohan Lal on 2-10-1999 stopped it. Then the jeep was handed over at police Station Sanganer where it was standing. Consequently, she handed over the jeep to Vikram Singh so that some amount may be earned from it. She was out to Alwar. On 4-10-1999 she returned. Vikram Singh told her that his brother was driving the jeep and Mohan Lal on 2-10-1999 stopped it. Then the jeep was handed over at police Station Sanganer where it was standing. Smt. Tankamma went to the Transport authorities for registration then came to know that the jeep was purchased on obtaining finance from some company and the balance was to be paid to it and till the balance was not cleared the jeep would not be transferred in her name. Therefore, according to the first information report, it were Mohan Lal, Gopal Lal and Surendra Bhargava who cheated her. On this report, a case under Sections 392, 394, 420, 379 read with 120-B Indian Penal Code was registered. The jeep was in possession of the police and as stated above has been released to Smt. Tankamma by the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 14-12-1999 and the application of the petitioner was dismissed on the same day. The learned Magistrate passed two different orders. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the complainant and have perused the record of the trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the original owner of the jeep was Surendra Bhargava who sold it to Gopal Bagada and executed an agreement. Gopal sold it to the petitioner for Rs. 2,13,000/- out of which Rs. 27,000/- was paid in cash and the balance was to be paid to the Jain Finance Company in instalments. It is further stated that the petitioner took a loan of Rs. 90,000/- from Smt. Tankamma and started paying installments to Jain Finance Company. Then a dispute arose between the petitioner and Smt. Tankamma and the jeep was seized by the police on the basis of said F.I.R. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that blank signed papers of Surendra Bhargava i.e. Form Nos. 29 and 30 were lying in the jeep and that on the face value Smt. Tankamma. has no right or title over the jeep because the registered owner and Gopal also gave affidavits in support of the petitioner and they have no objection if the vehicle is released in favour of the petitioner. 29 and 30 were lying in the jeep and that on the face value Smt. Tankamma. has no right or title over the jeep because the registered owner and Gopal also gave affidavits in support of the petitioner and they have no objection if the vehicle is released in favour of the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on Bheem Raj v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 1990 (2) WLN page 251, in which it was observed that the vehicle be delivered to the petitioner because he had bonafidely purchased it. Reliance has also been placed on Niraj Kumar Jain v. State of Raj. & Ors. 1999 (2) WLC 292, in which the facts were that truck was sold to Mr. 'N' and the documents relating to the sale were available on record even then the truck was handed over to the driver of the truck on whose report for offence under Section 379 Indian Penal Code final report was submitted by the police and in those circumstances the truck was handed over to Niraj Kumar Jain. Reliance has also been placed on Tulsi Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 1995 Crl. L.R. (Raj.) 433, in which there was an agreement for sale of truck, quite a huge amount was paid and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was to be paid at the time of registration. The vehicle was not registered in the name of the respondent and the truck was forcibly snatched by the respondent. The trial Court delivered the truck to the petitioner. It was held that the law has not contemplated that the delivery can be given only to the registered owner. Since the petitioner had right, title or subsequently be done by the purchaser. In view of these citations, it has been prayed that the vehicle may be handed over to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for Smt. Tankamma and learned Public Prosecutor have supported the order passed in favour of Smt. Tankamma. It may be stated that the learned Magistrate obtained a report from the concerned police station which reported that jeep was purchased from Gopal Sharma by Mohan Lal for a sum of Rs. 2,13,000/- and a sum of Rs. 86,000/- was lying as balance of M/s. Jain Auto Finance Company. A sum of Rs. 1,27,000/- was paid by Mohan Lal to Gopal. 2,13,000/- and a sum of Rs. 86,000/- was lying as balance of M/s. Jain Auto Finance Company. A sum of Rs. 1,27,000/- was paid by Mohan Lal to Gopal. It is also found that police submitted final report in the matter holding that it was a matter of civil nature but Smt. Tankamma has filed protest petition. On her behalf, it has been submitted that it was not possible that the documents which were only signed but were lying blankwould be available in the jeep which are alleged to be in favour of the petitioner. It has been submitted that Smt. Tankamma was duped of the whole earnings of her life and that the jeep was not in possession of the petitioner at the time of its seizure. From the power of attorney it is found that Gopal was not authorised to sell the vehicle, therefore, if there was any sale by Gopal, the same was primafacie not valid and on this ground, the learned Magistrate was right that Gopal could not have agreed for sale of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. However, a protest petition has been filed by Smt. Tankamma who is said to have been duped and her entire earning is said to have been thus misused and the vehicle was placed at the police station by her driver. I am of the view that the vehicle handed over to Smt. Tankamma should remain in her possession and has rightly been given to her on 'supurdaginama' by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 14-12-1999. 6. After having considered all the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to obtain the vehicle and hence this petition has no force and is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******