SOYEB ADAMBHAI MANSURI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2007 (Misc.Criminal Application No.469 of 2007) filed by the appellant for returning of muddamal, which has been rejected by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, vide order dated 28.9.2007 on the grounds set out in the memo of the appeal.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr.Vyas for the appellant submitted that the appellant has filed an application before the Court of learned Magistrate for returning the muddamal in Sessions Case No.1 of 2007, which is a Maruti-1000 bearing Regn.No. GJ-1-R-3537 and it is stated in the application that the said car was seized by the police from the possession of the appellant orig.accused which he had purchased from one Salim Mansuri, doing the business in the name and style of Khushbu Auto Consultant, Gandhinagar, for which Rs.34,000/- has been paid. Learned advocate submitted that hearing of the appeal may take some time and the condition of the vehicle will deteriorate and therefore, it should be given to him. Learned advocate Mr.Vyas also submitted that even if the appellant is not the registered owner of the vehicle and the vehicle is not shown in the RTO Book in his name, it is not relevant as it has been seized from the possession of the appellant and he could claim back the possession. In support of his submission, he has referred and relied upon the judgment of this High Court reported in 1990(2) GLR 1035. He has also referred to the judgment of this Court reported in 1984(1) GLR 126 in support of his submission.

(3.) Learned APP Mr.Pujari submitted that though the possession is claimed, there is no evidence with regard to the ownership and/or the possession. Learned APP submitted that the legal title or the ownership is not with the appellant. He referred to the papers and submitted that, admittedly, the Registration Number does not show the appellant as the registered owner and one Jagdish Patel is the registered owner as per the RTO Book. The appellant is said to have purchased it for Rs.34,000/- from Salim Mansuri. However, Salim Mansuri has no right, title and interest and how it has come to the possession is not established. Therefore, it was submitted that lawful possession is required to be considered and whether the appellant-accused can be said to be in the lawful possession particularly when there is a dispute or doubt with regard as to how he has acquired the possession of the said vehicle. Learned APP further submitted that as per the record of the RTO and the Registration Book, the registered owner is somebody else and if any claim is made, it would create further complications and therefore, the present appeal may not entertained.