(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 has been preferred praying for setting aside the order dated 25 th February 2012 in MJC Case No. 5/2010 passed by JMFC Ashoknagar, which was affirmed by the Sessions Judge Ashoknagar (M.P.) on revision (Criminal Revision No. 17/2011) moved by the petitioners vide order dated 11 th March 2012 and delivery of the offending truck on supurdginama in favour of the petitioners was denied.
(2.) The brief facts relating to the present case are that on 19 th December 2011 an information was received that the truck bearing registration No. MP 09 H.F./1081, which was financed in the name of Mohammad Rafiq Qureshi by Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Dewas was stolen away and the body of the same was fixed in the Truck bearing registration No. MP 04 HE/0604, which was passing through the road. On receiving such information, a raid was conducted by the Police Station Ashoknagar. On checking points, the police force intercepted the alleged truck. On demanding the papers of the vehicle, the driver and the conductor leaving the truck on the spot fled away. The theft truck was seized. An FIR was lodged at the Police Station. The seized truck being suspected to be the stolen property, the police registered the crime. The matter was inquired into. On inquiry, it appeared that the seized truck bearing Registration No. MP 04 HE 0604 which was claimed to be owned by the petitioner was carrying Cotton belonging to Deepak Snipers Ltd. Pagara, transported from Chennai to make a delivery at Ashokngar. During inquiry, it also appeared that the body of the Truck bearing Registration No. MP 09 HF 1081 owned by Mohammad Qureshi r/o Sarangpur was fixed with the chassis of the truck No. MP 04 HE 0604. The investigation in relation to the truck No. MP 09 HF 1081 was reported to be in progress. During inquiry, it was also gathered that on the chassis of truck No. MP 04 HE 0604, the body of aforesaid stolen truck bearing No. MP 09 HF 1081 was fixed. Meanwhile, when the investigation in theft cases were in progress, the petitioner moved an application for delivery of the offending truck, which was denied by both the courts, hence the present petition.
(3.) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned orders passed by the courts-below are against the facts and the law applicable to the case. It is submitted that the said truck which was seized was purchased on 15 th March 2008 from Sanghi Brothers Indore. It was financed by Tata Motors Finance Limited and insured with the Bharti AXA General Insurance Company. A National Permit to ply the vehicle all over the country was also obtained. It is, thus, submitted that the petitioner being the registered/real owner of the truck is entitled to get the seized property on supurginama. Therefore, it is prayed that the learned trial Magistrate be directed to handover the seized truck to the petitioner on surdginama.