Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 800 (RAJ)

Gopal Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2005-03-14

KHEM CHAND SHARMA

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa vide order dated 5.4.2004 has dismissed all the three applications moved by the petitioner Gopal Lal as well as non-petitioners Babu Lal and Surendra Kumar seeking custody of bus No. RJ29- R1074 seized in FIR No. 196/2003. Challenging this order, the petitioner Gopal Lal has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.RC. 2. The facts relevant for deciding the petition in short are that on the basis of a written complaint of petitioner Gopal sent to Deputy Inspector General of Police II, Jaipur first information report No. 548/2003 was registered at police Station Dausa under Section 379 IPC against non-petitioner No. 3 Surendra Kumar. The police after investigation has filed a charge sheet against him in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa. 3. Similarly, non-petitioner No. 3 Surendra Kumar also lodged a first information report No. 561/2003 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC against petitioner Gopal Lal, Chiranji Lal and Raju. The police after investigation came to the conclusion that Surendra Kumar sold the bus to petitioner Gopal Lal through a sale letter duly attested by notary. Gopal Lal on the basis of this sale letter got transferred the registration of the bus in his name and on the basis of registration Gopal Lal is the owner of the bus w.e.f. 30.7.2003, which was stolen in the night of 15.4.2003 from Rawan Ka Teeba, Dausa. On the basis of these conclusions the police has submitted final report in the matter. 4. Non-petitioner No. 2 Babu Lal came with this case that he purchased the disputed vehicle on 25.6.2003 from Surendra Kumar through agreement to sale. As per his case, Chiranji Lal, brother of Gopal was the driver on the bus and was known to the family members of Surendra Kumar. In such circumstances, by fraud, Chiranji Lal obtained sale letter and form Nos. 28 and 29 from the wife of Surendra Kumar and on the basis of these documents Gopal Lal got the vehicle transferred in his name. 5. In the facts mentioned above, all the three persons namely; petitioner Gopal Lal and non-petitioners Babu Lal Panchal and Surendra Kumar approached the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa for releasing the disputed vehicle in their name. 5. In the facts mentioned above, all the three persons namely; petitioner Gopal Lal and non-petitioners Babu Lal Panchal and Surendra Kumar approached the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa for releasing the disputed vehicle in their name. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after hearing the parties vide its order dated 5.4.2004 dismissed application of all the three claimants on the grounds that there is dispute between the parties regarding ownership of the bus, the bus is required in evidence and that investigation in the first information report lodged by Surendra Kumar still going on. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner being registered owner of the bus in dispute is best entitled person for getting custody of the bus. It is also submitted that the police after investigation in the first information report lodged by the petitioner has filed challan against non-petitioner No. 3 Surendra Kumar for offence under Section 379 IPC. Counsel further contends that the police after investigation in the report lodged by non-petitioner Surendra Kumar prima facie has found his case to be false. On this strength, learned counsel has prayed that the petitioner being best entitled person, the petitioner Gopal is entitled to get custody of the disputed bus. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar and another (2001) 10 SCC 88 ). 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioners has objected the petition on the ground that the petitioner got the relevant documents from illiterate wife of non-petitioner Surendra Kumar whereas the disputed bus was never sold to him. It is also contended that on the basis of the forged documents, custody of the bus cannot be given to the appellant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 10. Before dealing with the merits of the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it will be useful to go through the legal position regarding release of vehicle pending investigation or trial of the case. 11. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 10. Before dealing with the merits of the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it will be useful to go through the legal position regarding release of vehicle pending investigation or trial of the case. 11. In the case of Rajendra Prasad (supra), considering the provisions of Section 451, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held as under: "We are not deciding the question as to the title of the vehicle in dispute nor the correctness of the rival versions regarding the transactions relating to the vehicle. We do not want the vehicle to remain in the compound of the police station exposed to heat and cold because the automobile is likely to be lost to all in such situation. To avert this situation, we are inclined to entrust it temporarily to the appellants who is the ostensible name-holder in the registration certificate. The custody of the vehicle with the appellant will be on behalf of the court and this agreement is only till the stage when the court passed the order regarding disposal of the property on conclusion of the trial." 12. Observing so, their Lordships have directed the trial court to release the vehicle to the appellant on certain conditions. 13. Again in the case of Sunder Bhai Amba Lal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 ) their Lordships of the Supreme Court have occasion to consider the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 Cr.PC. After discussing the provisions of the above mentioned sections of Cr.RC., procedure for custody and disposal of the valuable articles and currency notes, vehicles, seized liquor and narcotic drugs has been laid down. Regarding disposal of the seized vehicle it has been observed as under: "In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if require at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles." 14. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if require at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles." 14. Thus, without deciding the question as to the title of the vehicle in dispute nor the correctness of the rival versions regarding the transaction relating to the vehicle and to avoid further damages in the vehicle because of remaining the same in the police compound exposed to the heat and cold, I am inclined to entrust the bus in dispute temporarily to the petitioner whose name appeared a registered owner of the registration certificate. The custody of the vehicle with the petitioner will be on behalf of the court and this arrangement is only till the stage when court passes the order regarding disposal of the property on conclusion of the trial. 15. In the result, this petition is allowed and it is directed that bus No. RJ29-P-1074 shall be released in favour of the petitioner on 'superdgi' only till the stage when the court passes the order regarding disposal of the property on conclusion of the trial, on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-(Rupees one lac fifty thousand) with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that he will produce the bus in the court whenever required by the court and with further condition that he shall not sell, dispose or alienate the whole or any part of it in any manner.Petition disposed of. *******