Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 359 (PNJ)

Raj Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2001-03-16

K.S.KUMARAN

body2001
Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. Heard counsel for both the sides and perused the records. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner purchased a Jeep bearing No. HR 10-B-6819 on 5.2.1998 under a financial agreement dated 2.1.1998 with the second respondent-herein whereby the second-respondent has given financial assistance to the petitioner of a sum of Rs. Two lakhs. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this vehicle which was being used by the petitioner was charge-sheeted by the transport officials on 24.5.2000 under annexure P-3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the registration certificate in respect of this vehicle stands in the name of the petitioner (copy annexure P-1). He also points out that the second respondent-herein moved an application before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, for the release of the vehicle in his favour on superdari (annexure P-4). But, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat by order dated 27.7.2000 (anneuxre P-5) directed that the vehicle be returned on superdari to its registered owner on certain conditions. He also points out that as against this order the second respondent-herein preferred a Criminal Revision No. 24 dated 2000 before Sessions Court, Sonepat, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, allowed the Revision setting aside the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and consequently directed that the vehicle in question be released on superdari to the second respondent-herein by his order dated 13.9.2000 (annexure P-6). 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the revision petition before the Sessions Court, he was neither made a party nor a notice was given nor any opportunity of hearing was given, which is contrary to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. Rajendra Kumar, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 401, wherein the Honble Supreme Court held that though the statute does not expressly require a notice to be issued or a hearing to be given to the parties adversely affected and though the statute is silent and does not expressly require issue of any notice, there is in the eye of law a necessary implication that the parties adversely affected should be heard before the Court makes an order of return of the seized property. 3. This decision squarely supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. 3. This decision squarely supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. In view of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle, and that the possession of the vehicle was taken from him, the claim of the petitioner for the vehicle being released to him on superdari ought to have been considered. This is especially so when the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, had passed the order to return the vehicle to the registered owner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also raised a legal objection that in view of the provisions contained in Section 20(i) of the Hire-Purchase Act, 1972, the owner could take possession only by way of filing an application or suit before the Court inasmuch as the value of the vehicle exceeds Rs. 15,000/- and inasmuch as the hirer has paid more than 9/10ths of the amount due. As against this, the learned counsel for the second respondent contends that he has to verify whether there was notification by the Central Government regarding the condition that the petitioner should have paid 9/10ths this of the amount due. 5. Learned counsel for the second respondent also contends that even in the registration certificate, there is an endorsement to the effect that the vehicle in question is subject to the hire purchase agreement with the second respondent. 6. In view of what the course that I am going to adopt, I am of the view that I need not enter into the merits of the rival contentions of the parties on this aspect. Apparently, the petitioner was not made a party to the revision petition filed by the second respondent nor was he given any opportunity of hearing by issuing a notice. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court cited supra, I am of the view that the petitioner who has been adversely affected by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, should have been given an opportunity of hearing before ever the order in favour of the petitioner is set aside. 7. Therefore, this petition is allowed setting aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 13.9.2000 impugned in this petition. The matter is remanded back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, who will hear both the parties and then decide the Revision Petition afresh. 7. Therefore, this petition is allowed setting aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 13.9.2000 impugned in this petition. The matter is remanded back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, who will hear both the parties and then decide the Revision Petition afresh. For this purpose, the petitioner and the second respondent are directed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, on 30.3.2001 or on notice. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after giving both the parties opportunity of hearing, decide the matter afresh in accordance with law within a period of two weeks thereafter. Until the decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the Revision, the vehicle in question will continue to be in the possession of the second respondent subject to the conditions already imposed upon it by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that the Revision before the Sessions Judge is not maintainable. The petitioner will be at liberty to raise this point also before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for both the petitioner and the second-respondent. A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat.