Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 603 (GAU)

Jhantu Biswas v. State of Assam

2006-06-27

I.A.ANSARI

body2006
JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. Based on a First Information Report lodged with the police, G.R. Case No. 597/94 was registered under Section 406 IPC against the present petitioner, as accused, the case of the informant being, briefly stated, thus: The informant, namely, Amarendra Dey, was the owner of an Ambassador car bearing registration No. ASC 9417. In course of time, the said ear came to be transferred to, and registered in, the name of the informant's nephew, Shyamal Dey (i.e. the respondent No. 2 herein). Notwithstanding the said transfer in favour of Shyamal Dey, the informant, Amarendra Dey, still retained the control and management of the said vehicle. When the informant had gone to Guwahati, his driver took, on instructions of the informant, the said car to the workshop of accused Jhantu Biswas, on 2.5.1994, for repairing and the accused told the driver to leave the car, at the said workshop, assuring the informant's driver that he (accused) would take care of the same and would send back the car after doing the needful. The accused, however, changed the diesel engine, bearing No. ODB 50083, of the informant's car by replacing the same with the petrol engine of a car bearing registration No. MLS 9729. When the informant returned home from Guwahati, he came to know about what the accused had done. 2. During the course of investigation, police seized, amongst others, the registration books of both the said vehicles and, on completion of investigation, laid charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner under Section 420/406 IPC. The accused-petitioner, eventually, faced trial on a charge framed under Section 420 IPC. By judgment and order, dated 12.6.2001, passed, in G.R. Case No. 579/94, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, acquitted the accused-petitioner and also directed the seized articles to be returned to the person from whom seized. 3. In terms of the directions given in the order, dated 12.6.2001, aforementioned, the accused-petitioner tried to obtain from the police the said diesel engine on the ground that the said engine having been seized from the possession of the accused-petitioner, the accused-petitioner was entitled to receive the possession of the said engine; but the accused-petitioner did not succeed. The accused-petitioner, then, made an application, under Section 452 Cr.P.C., in the learned trial Court, seeking directions to the police to hand over the seized diesel engine to the accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner, then, made an application, under Section 452 Cr.P.C., in the learned trial Court, seeking directions to the police to hand over the seized diesel engine to the accused-petitioner. By order, dated 3.9.2001, the learned trial court disposed of the said application, made under Section452, directing the Investigating Officer to the effect, inter alia, to return the seized materials, including the engine, to the accused-petitioner, for, the said engine had been seized from the possession of the accused-petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, Shyamal Dey (i.e. respondent No. 2 herein), who is the registered owner of the Ambassador car No. ASC-9417, impugned the order, dated 3.9.2001, aforementioned in appeal, which gave rise to Criminal Appeal No. 10(3)/2001. By judgment and order, dated 27.6.2002, passed, in Criminal Appeal No. 10(3)/2001, the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, has set aside the order, dated 3.9.2001, aforementioned and directed the said diesel engine to be handed over to the respondent No. 2 herein, namely, Shyamal Dey. It is the order, dated 27.6.2002, passed in the appeal, which stands impugned, in the present revision, by the accused-petitioner. 4. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner or the respondent No. 2. a However, I heard Mr. B. Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 5. While considering the present revision, what is important to note is that the outcome of an application made under Section 452 Cr.P.C. does not entirely depend on the grounds on which the accused is acquitted of a charge. Section 452 Cr.P.C. empowers a Criminal Court to direct the disposal of the property at the conclusion of the trial. The powers, so given, include the power to direct the delivery of the property to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof. 6. In the case at hand, the material question was not as to whether the diesel engine had been seized from the possession of the accused or not. What was relevant, while considering the application, made under Section 452 Cr.P.C. seeking possession of the said engine, was to ascertain as to who was entitled to possession of the same. The learned trial court directed the release of the said engine in favour of the accused, primarily, on the ground that the said engine had been seized from the possession of the accused. Having, however, noticed that Ext. The learned trial court directed the release of the said engine in favour of the accused, primarily, on the ground that the said engine had been seized from the possession of the accused. Having, however, noticed that Ext. 3, which was the registration book in respect of the Ambassador car No. ASC 9417, revealed that the diesel engine No. ODB 50083 was the engine fitted into the said Ambassador car, the learned Sessions Judge interfered with the impugned directions given, on 3.9.2001, by the learned trial Court and ordered that the said diesel engine be handed over to the owner of the Ambassador car, namely Shyamal Dey (i.e. the respondent No. 2 herein). I find no infirmity, legal or factual, in the reasoning so assigned by the learned Sessions Judge. 7. It has not been disputed, in the present revision, that as per the registration book of the Ambassador car No. ASC 9417, the diesel engine No. ODB 50083 aforementioned is a part of the said car and, if it was so, the mere fact that the said engine was seized from the workshop of the accused-petitioner could not have been made a ground to direct the police to hand over the said engine to the accused-petitioner. In such circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order, dated 27.6.2002, and the directions given thereunder. 8. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this revision fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 9. Send back the LCRs. Petition dismissed