HUKAM CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against an order dated 20.1.90 passed by the learned ASJ, Delhi ordering release of Bus No. DEP 4714 on Superdart to Mani Ram, respondent No. 2 seized by the police in case FIR No. 147/89 registered under Sections 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code in PS Samay Pur Badli, Delhi at the instance of respondent No. 2 Mani Ram.

(2.) In brief the allegations are thaton4.10.82oneHarjeetSinghson of Thakur Singh purchased the impugned bus and started plying it on DTC route. The bus was financed by State Bank of India, Gandhi Nagar branch. On 19.11.87 Sanjeev Chopra accused in the aforesaid FIR purchased the bus from him on the basis of usual documents. The bus continued to be plied under DTC operation. Name of Harjeet Singh remained on the account because it was he who was to collect payment from the DTC and deposit the same on account No. 25782 opened jointly by him along with petitioner in PNB. West Patel Nagar, New Delhi for the benefit of Sanjeev Chopra. Sanjeev Chopra is also alleged to have deposited Rs. 24.500.00 towards loan instalment of the bank payable by Harjeet Singh. Petitioner claims to have purchased the said bus on 15.6 89 from Sanjeev Chopra. His name was also entered in the records of the Transport Authority.

(3.) The vbrief facts which appear from the order of the learned M.M. dated 16.8.89 are that case under Sections 406/420/468/471 read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code was registered against Sanjeev Chopra accused and some others at the instance of respondent No. 2 Mani Ram alleging that accused Sanjeev Chopra was employed by him as a driver of bus No. DEP 7352. After some time the aforesaid accused prompted respondent No. 2 to sign some blank papers on the pretext that he would try to get him a National permit. The accused, thereafter is alleged to have transferred bus DEP 7352 in his own name. Further allegation was that the accused induced respondent No. 2 to part with a huge amount and the accused also purchased some other buses also in his name. Suffice it to say that the complainant made no mention of Bus No. DEP-4714 as having been purchased by the accused with the funds alleged to have been fraudulently taken by the accused from him.