PARMESHWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of all the parties the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioner who is alleged to have committed an offence in connection with Crime No.333/2017 registered with Sillod Gramin Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 379 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, where under a tractor and a trolley was seized, submitted an application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking return of the tractor. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order rejected the application. Being aggrieved he preferred a revision under Section 397 before the Sessions Court but by the impugned order even the Revision has been dismissed. Hence this Writ Petition.

(3.) According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the petitioner is the owner of the tractor. He has purchased it from respondent No. 2 S.S. Auto which is the authorized dealer, under a Tax Invoice dated 02.12.2016 (Exhibit-B) and Sale Certificate of the even date and received its custody under the Delivery Challan. It was duly insured with the respondent No. 3 insurance company under Insurance Policy (Exhibit C). He would submit that both the courts below have refused to return the tractor primarily on the ground that there is a serious doubt about identity of the tractor. He submits that when admittedly the self same vehicle has been seized from the custody of the petitioner who has been accused of committing the crime, it was unnecessary for the courts below to have indulged in any further scrutiny as regards the claim of the petitioner for its custody. He would submit that while drawing the Panchnama, no specific Chassis and Engine numbers were noted. When the petitioner is being attributed and tried to be roped in being the owner of the tractor, the State cannot be allowed now to raise any issue on that count. The vehicle is rusting in the premises of the police station. As laid down by the Supreme Court from time to time (Smt. Basava Kom Dyamogouda Patil Vs. State of Mysore and Anr; 1977 Crl.L.J. 1141 and Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat; AIR 2003 Supreme Court 638) it would be expedient to return the tractor to the petitioner with whatever stringent conditions.