KHATEEB AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJIV Sharma, J. Heard Sri Arif Hasan, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Srivastava, Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) IT is stated by the petitioner's Counsel that the petitioner had pur chased a second hand Maruti Van bearing registration No. U. P.-32-A-5958 from its registered owner Mohd. Rizwan after verifying the antecedents from the transport department. The Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow informed that there is no legal impediment in transfer of the vehicle, and as such the same was transferred in the name of the petitioner.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the District magistrate as well as appellate authority committed manifest error of law and facts in not considering the entire materials on record and had not ap plied their independent mind. The petitioner has purchased the vehicle after verifying the authenticity of the documents from the Transport Department and there was no caution marked or embargo in respect of the said vehicle and the same was duly transferred and recorded in the name of the petitioner on 15th February, 2003. The proper course available to the opposite party No. 2 and the police was to proceed against Vinod Kumar Singh, who was the origi nal owner of the vehicle, if he had committed any offence and not against the petitioner.