Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1718 (RAJ)

Mukesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2023-09-11

FARJAND ALI

body2023
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, challenge has been made to the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Cases) Ratangarh, District Churu in Criminal Misc. Case No.25/2021 relating to Session Case No.33/2021 pertaining to FIR No. 186/2021 registered at Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for releasing the vehicle in question (Fortuner) bearing registration No. RJ 14 UJ 5319, has been declined. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased the vehicle from its registered owner. He had made part payment to him and the delivery of the vehicle had been handed over to him and he was plying the vehicle which has been seized by the police in connection of the aforementioned matter. The relevant material with regard to that transaction has been made available to the Court. It is his submission that the sale of a motor vehicle would be covered under the provision of Sale and Goods Act and as per which, after the payment of price and delivery of goods, the process of sale is completed. The registration of the vehicle could not have been transferred because of the hypothecation endorsement made on the registration certificate and that was under process and in the meantime, the vehicle got seized by police. It is further contended that the registered owner is also agreeable and willing if the delivery of the vehicle is handed over to the petitioner. An affidavit to this effect executed by the registered owner in favour of the petitioner has also been placed on record. The vehicle in question is lying in an open area of police station and it may deteriorate its condition if allowed to keep stationed there. He further submits that the interim custody of the vehicle in question can be given to the petitioner till conclusion of the trial and for that, there is no legal bar. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the finance company made protest to the submission made on behalf of the petitioner by contending that some installments towards the petitioner are due, therefore, the delivery may not be given to the petitioner. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the fact of sale in favour of the petitioner. 5. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the finance company made protest to the submission made on behalf of the petitioner by contending that some installments towards the petitioner are due, therefore, the delivery may not be given to the petitioner. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the fact of sale in favour of the petitioner. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material available on record, I feel persuaded to interfere in the matter. It is not in dispute that there was an agreement to sale in favour of the petitioner, only the transfer of the registration was pending. The registered owner does not object if the vehicle is given to the petitioner for which he has furnished an affidavit. As far as the question of claim of finance company is concerned; suffice it would be to say that a company would be at liberty to take appropriate action for recovery of the due installments and it may initiate proceeding and for that; there is no bar. However, at this stage, no such proceeding has been initiated on its behalf, therefore, it is not deemed appropriate to allow the parking of the vehicle in an open area in police station to see its natural decay and deterioration and the prayer made by the petitioner deserves to be accepted. 6. Following the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 and the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2005/2022 [SLP (Crl.) No.7280/2022) titled as Sainaba v. The State of Kerala and Anr., wherein, the vehicle involved in a crime under NDPS Act was directed to be released on terms and conditions to be determined by the Special Court, the revision petition is allowed and this Court deems it just and appropriate to release the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner on interim custody till conclusion of the trial provided he furnishes a Supurdaginama of Rs. 20,00,000/- and surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Court below.