YELLAPPA HANUMANT MORE Vs. SHANKAR SONYABAPU CHANDANWALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Application has been filed by the original complainant against the order dated 31st July 1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati in Revision Application No.47 of 1991 whereby the custody of the Truck No. MWC 5969 has been granted to the Respondent No.1- original Accused No.1. The brief facts leading to the present revision application are as follows :

(2.) THE Respondent No.2 herein was admittedly the owner of the truck No. MWC 5969. According to the petitioner the said truck was agreed to be sold by respondent No.2 to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- in respect of which a receipt dated 21st June 1990 was issued. It is the case of the petitioner that the custody of the truck was handed over to the petitioner on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 21st June 1990 and what remained to be done was the transfer of the truck in question in the name of the petitioner in the RTO records for which the Respondent No.2-the owner had already given an application. Later on the Respondent No.2 demanded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- more in order to get No objection Certificate for transfer of the truck in question in the name of the petitioner. As the petitioner did not pay this additional sum of Rs. 40,000/-, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - Original Accused Nos. 1 and 2 fraudulently took away the truck from the petitioner in the midnight of 3rd May 1991 on the pretext that hey had to bring luggage of an officer from the Railway station. Following day the Respondent No.2 appears to have sold the said truck to Respondent No.1's father for a valuable consideration. When the said truck was not returned the next day the petitioner made enquiries and on finding that the truck in question was fraudulently taken away from him on the pretext of bringing luggage from the railway Station of an officer and ultimately sold to Respondent no. 1, the petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of JMFC, Baramati being Criminal case No.95 of 1991 for offences under Section 406, 418, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC against the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.THE petitioner had also applied for issuance of search warrant under Section 94 of Cr. P. C. and pursuant to the search warrant the truck was seized by the police. THE trial magistrate however granted the interim custody to the Respondent No.1 being the registered owner of the truck after it was transferred to him by the Respondent No.2 and the process was issued against both the respondents.

(3.) FROM the facts alleged it appears that the Respondent No.2 sold the truck in question to the petitioner and, thereafter resold it to Respondent No.1. If the case of the petitioner as regards the earlier agreement to sell the truck to him pursuant to which the custody was given to him and subsequently taking away the truck from his custody is accepted, in that case the interim custody ought to have been given to the petitioner. The lower Courts had granted the custody to the respondent No.1 on the ground that he is the registered owner. Though the present Revision Application was admitted in this Court, no interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner and the custody of the truck, therefore, remained with the respondent No.1 during the intervening period. In that case it would not be desirable to disturb the custody at this stage. On enquiry Mr. Dalvi stated that the trial has not taken place in the complaint being Criminal Case No.95/91 filed by the petitioner against the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the Court of JMFC, Baramati. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel it would not be desirable to disturb the custody of the truck at this stage but it would be desirable and in the interest of justice that the criminal case is expedited and the trial takes place expeditiously so that the final orders with regard to the custody of the truck can be passed depending on the result of the prosecution against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.