Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1547 (RAJ)

Ladulal v. State of Rajasthan

2002-09-05

A.C.GOYAL

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - Since both the S.B. Criminal Revision Petitions arise out of the same F.I.R. No. 333/01 and common facts are involved in both the revision petitions, hence both are being decided by one order. 2. Relevant facts in brief are that the complainant-petitioner Sh. Ladulal submitted a written report at police station Niwai on 5.9.2001 with the averments that he purchased on Commando Jeep No. RJ-26 P 0541 from a Motor Company at Jaipur on 5.1.2000 and got it registered in his name. Thereafter accused respondent Ram Avtar misrepresented to his son Shankar Lal that vehicle Tata Sumo RJ-14 C 2764 belongs to him and exchanged Tata Sumo with Commando Jeep of the complainant and according to sale letter, it was shown that the Jeep was sold to Ram Avtar for a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/-. As a matter of fact Ram Avtar was not the owner of the Tata Sumo, rather the registered owner of Tata Sumo was one Hari Ram Choudhary. Sh. Ram Avtar by misrepresentation sold this Tata Sumo to the complainant and his son Shankar Lal vide agreement. It was also stated in the report that accused Ram Avtar got the signatures of the complainant upon sale letter of Jeep and got the registration of the Jeep transferred in his name and subsequently took away Tata Sumo by making false representation but later on did not return Tata Sumo. 3. The case under Sections 420 and 406 I.RC. was registered. During investigation both the vehicles were seized by the police. Tata Sumo was seized by the police station, Kotwali, Chittorgarh under Section 102 Cr.RC. and that vehicles was given to its registered owner Sh. Hari Ram on Supardginama by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh. 4. Both Sh. Ladulai and Sh. Ram Avtar made separate applications under Section 45T Cr.RC. for Superdagi of Jeep. For Superdagi of Tata Sumo, Ladulal and his son Shankar Lal submitted joint application and the other application was moved by respondent No. 2 Mohd. Ayub as per criminal revision No. 329/02. 5. The learned ACJM, Niwai vide order dated 5.2.2002 came to this conclusion that the complainant Ladulal himself sold this Jeep to the accused respondent Ram Avtar vide sale letter dated 27.12.2000 and thereafter Sh. Ayub as per criminal revision No. 329/02. 5. The learned ACJM, Niwai vide order dated 5.2.2002 came to this conclusion that the complainant Ladulal himself sold this Jeep to the accused respondent Ram Avtar vide sale letter dated 27.12.2000 and thereafter Sh. Ram Avtar deposited a sum of rupees more than 1,33,000/- in various instalments to the company against the price of this Jeep and registration of this Jeep was transferred in the name of Sh. Ram Avtar on 5.3.2001, hence Sh. Ram Avtar was entitled to have this jeep on Superdagi. 6. Vide second order dated 7.3.2002 the learned ACJM, Niwai came to this conclusion that registered owner of the Tata Sumo was Sh. Hari Ram who sold this vehicle vide sale letter dated 21.1.2002 to Sh. Mohd. Ayub and this vehicle was recovered from the possession of Mohd. Ayub and thus Sh. Ayub was entitled to its possession. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner contended that Sh. Hari Ram vide sale letter dated 9.4.2000 sold this vehicle to Sh. Ram Avtar a Sh. Ram Avtar sold this Tata Sumo vide sale letter dated 27.12.2000 to Ladulal and his son and thereafter Sh. Ram Avtar and others took away this Tata Sumo also by deceitful means and thus the complainant-petitioner is entitled to possessions of at least one vehicle. Learned counsel for the respondents Ram Avatar and Mohd. Ayub argued that Tata Sumo met with an accident and this vehicle was seized by police station, Kotwali, Chittorgarh and neither Ladulal and In nor Ram Avtar took it in possession, hence Sh. Hari Ram got it on Superdagi and paid the remaining installments to Kamal & Company and thereafter Kamal & Company executed another agreement on 28.1.2002 in favour of Sh. Hari Ram and thereafter Sh. .Hari Ram sold this vehicle to Sh. Mohd. Ayub vide sale letter dated 21.1.2002 and thus both the impugned orders does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 8. I have considered the rival submissions. There may be substance in the allegations made by the complainant- petitioner Ladulal against the respondent No. 2 Ram Avtar but as far as the point of giving the possession of both the vehicles under Section 451 Cr.RC. 8. I have considered the rival submissions. There may be substance in the allegations made by the complainant- petitioner Ladulal against the respondent No. 2 Ram Avtar but as far as the point of giving the possession of both the vehicles under Section 451 Cr.RC. is concerned, I find no infirmity, impropriety or illegality in the impugned orders, as this Jeep was sold by the complainant to Ram Avtar vide sale letter and thereafter the registration of this Jeep was transferred in the name of Ram Avtar. Similarly, the registered owner of the Tata Sumo was Hari Ram who sold it to Mohd. Ayub and the registration of the same was transferred in the name of Mohd. Ayub. Consequently, both the revision petitions are dismissed.Revision petitions dismissed. *******