SANJAY RAKHEJA Vs. STATE OF CG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Bhim Sen lodged a report regarding theft of vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-B-2795 and fabrication of documents. On his report, crime No.288/ 2003 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 379, 420, 467, 468, 471 tead with Section 34 of the IPC has been registered by Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur. During investigation vehicle has been recovered and seized. The document relating to finance and agreement and photo copy of RC book has been seized from the petitioner. For obtaining the seized vehicle on Suprudnama petitioner claiming himself to be the financer has moved application before the lower Court, but lower court dismissed his application. Learned revisional Court vide order dated 01/12/2004 passed in Criminal Revision No. 369/2004, on the ground that last registered owner as per registration book is Bhim Sen, released the vehicle on Suprudnama is his favour. Feeling aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the order passed by the revisional Court and for releasing the vehicle on Suprudnama in favour of the petitioner. Vehicle bearing No. CG-04-B-2795 was originally registered in the name of Harish Kaushal. On 13/10/2003 it was registered in the name of Shyam Kumar. On 13/10/2003 the entry of agreement of hire purchase in favour of Vaibhav Motors has also been made on 30/10/2003 the vehicle has been registered in the name of Bhim Sen. Section 2 (30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines the "owner" according to the definition, owner means the person in whose name the motor vehicle has been registered and if the vehicle is subject of hire purchase, the person in possession of the vehicle under the agreement. Therefore, before the vehicle was registered in the name of Bhim Sen, the owner of the vehicle was Shyam Kumar, but as soon as in a public document i.e., registration book as owner the name of Bhim Sen has been recorded Shyam Kumar or Financer, till it is proved feat the name of Bhim Sen has been entered fraudulently remains no more owner or financer of the vehicle.

(2.) LEARNED revisional Court, after taking into consideration that the vehicle is registered in the name of Bhim Sen, released the vehicle in his favour on Suprudnama which is subject to final decision of the case where in accordance with Section 452 of the Cr.P.C., the trial Court is required to pass order for disposal of property. Here it is pertinent to mention that Judicial Magistrate First Class has mentioned that the vehicle has been seized from Bhim Sen, the revisional Court in its order has stated that the vehicle has been seized form Sanjay Rakheja, whereas Officer-in-charge of Police Station Azad Chowk has reported that the property has been seized from Kishore Ashrani. Prima facie, registered owner of the vehicle is Bhim Sen. Petitioner is neither the registered owner of the vehicle nor is the financer for Bhim Sen, therefore, the Court below releasing the vehicle in favour of Bhim Sen has not committed any error of law or jurisdiction which may call for interference by this Court under its extraordinary power. In the result, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, is directed to endeavour expeditious disposal of the case as the matter relates to vehicle which may loose its value by lapse of time. Petition Rejected.