DINKAR JAGANNATH THAKAR Vs. SURESH RAMSINGH THAKOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Dr. Dinkarray Jagannath Thakar is an old man of about 78 years and a Medical Practitioner of City of Ahmedabad. The petitioner has submitted that his Maruti Car bearing Registration No. GBL 9475 was recovered by the police in connection with Maninagar Police Station CR No. 448/91. Offence was committed by one Suresh Ramsinh Thakor, Mahommad Nawab @ Nawab Mahommad Rasid Kureshi and 2 (two) others, punishable under Secs. 452, 395, 397, 342, 120-B of the IPC and under Sec. 25(1 )(a) & (b) of the Arms Act. Police submitted chargesheet against four accused and two Sessions Cases were registered before the learned City Sessions Judge. Ahmedabad being Sessions Case No. 364/92 and 88/93, as two chargesheets were filed. Both the Sessions Cases were tried simultaneously and they are disposed of by the common judgment dated 12.11.1993. It is submitted by the petitioner that on 11.11.1991, the alleged offence was committed at about 0.50 hours. As per the case, the accused entered the house of the petitioner and robbed golden ornaments, cash amount, wrist watches and maruti car bearing above referred registration number etc. owned by the petitioner.

(2.) It is prayed that now the trial is concluded. None of the accused has claimed ownership or any right whatsoever over the said Maruti car. The petitioner is the owner of Maruti car and till this date, even as per the record of RTO, he is the owner of the said maruti car looted by the accused. It is submitted that two accused came to be convicted by the learned City Sessions judge concerned and they have preferred appeals before this Court against the order of conviction and sentence and the same are pending for final disposal. The anxiety of the petitioner is that now he is aged enough and the Maruti car has also gone old. He intends to sell the car. So, he should be permitted to sell and dispose of Maruti car because now there is no question of identification of maruti car. The petitioner has also produced order passed by the learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad at Annex. C & D to this application. As per the order passed by the learned City Sessions Judge, the muddamal car was handed over to the petitioner on certain conditions and one of the condition is that the petitioner shall restore the possession of the said muddamal car as and when called by the Court. The petitioner submitted that said condition should be lifted and he should be permitted to sell the maruti car. The petitioner has also executed a bond of Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. fourty thousand only) for getting muddamal from the City Sessions Court. He has prayed that he should be permitted to sell the said car unconditionally. After going through the entire record and facts available from the record, judgment delivered by the learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, I am satisfied that the petitioner is the victim of the offence. Now, there is no question of identification of muddamal maruti car looted by the accused while committing offence and, therefore, prayer in terms of Para 6(A) requires to be granted. Learned APP Mr. Mankad has also fairly submitted that nobody is likely to be prejudiced if muddamal maruti car is permitted to be sold or transferred as prayed for in this application.

(3.) In the result, Misc. Cri. Application is allowed in terms of Para 6(A) of the application. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in to restore the muddamal maruti on call is lifted and the petitioner is permitted to sell or in any manner transfer the aforesaid muddamal maruti car. Rule is made absolute.