SHAFIQ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in the present revision relates to Jeep No. BLD 7325. Its interim custody was allowed by the Magistrate concerned in favour of the applicant Shafiq Ahmad, rejecting the application of the opposite party No. 2 Hakeemuddin. On a revision filed by him, II Addl. Session Judge, Azamgarh quashed the order of the Magistrate and permitted the interim custody of the Jeep in his favour (Hakeemuddin). The applicant Shafiq Ahmad has felt aggrieved thereby and has preferred this revision.

(2.) Relevant facts lie within a short compass. Shafiq Ahmad was the original owner of the Jeep in question. On his F.I.R. a case under Ss. 406, 506 and 348, I.P.C. was registered at P.S. Deogaon on 15-3-1992 against certain persons including Hakeemuddin. The allegations were that the said Jeep was hired by Hakeemuddin and two others on 11-3-1992 in the evening at Lalganj Bus Station for Rs. 700.00 for taking it to Mirzapur. Two persons sent by Hakeemuddin took the Jeep with driver to Mirzapur on 12-3-1992 at about 9 P.M. After some time when Shafiq Ahmad reached his house from Lalganj, women-folk of his house informed him that a letter had been received that the Jeep had met with an accident at Mirzapur. He reached Mirzapur and located Hakeemuddin along with his associates and Jeep as also the driver of the Jeep. Hakeemuddin demanded Rs. 70,000.00 from Shafiq Ahmad or asked him to sign the papers to transfer the Jeep to him. Shafiq Ahmad refused to abide by his command, but under threats to his life, he was forced by Hakeemuddin to sign the papers for the transfer of the Jeep to him. He was then let off. He with his driver returned to his home and lodged the F.I.R. at P.S. Deogaon on 15-3-1992 whereupon case No. 29 of 1992 was registered and the police submitted charge sheet, inter-alia, against Hakeemuddin. During investigation, the Jeep had been recovered by the police from a place in District Mirzapur which is the subject matter of interim custody.

(3.) The learned counsel for both the parties have been heard at length and I have also perused the record of the Court below which has been summoned for the disposal of this revision. The argument from the side of the applicant Shafiq Ahmad is that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by reappraising the evidence to reverse the order of the learned Magistrate who had rightly released the vehicle in his favour. Reliance has been placed on the case of Subhash Chandra v. State of U. P., 1992 JTC 491 wherein it was held that the charge sheet having been filed on the prima facie proof of the allegations of the informant to be true, there could not be enough justification to release the vehicle in favour of the accused.