PRASHANTA SEN Vs. SWADHIN PRAMANICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed challenging the order dated July 10, 2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Murshidabad at Berhampur in C.R. Case No.637 of 2009 thereby issuing order upon the O.C., Kalyani P.S. for taking possession of the vehicle in question.

(2.) The petitioner is the accused of the complaint case under Section 420/406 of the I.P.C. He appeared before the Court and his prayer for bail was granted. He filed the application for staying of the order dated July 10, 2009 stating, inter alia, that he purchased the vehicle from the opposite party no.1 upon payment of the consideration value of Rs.3,50,000/-. He also contended that at first he paid Rs.20,000/- as advance money and then he paid the balance amount of Rs.3,30,000/- by taking loan of the same from the Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Limited being the accused no.1 of the said complaint case. The opposite patty no.1 granted receipt accordingly. Thereafter, the ownership of the vehicle was transferred in the name of the petitioner. In support of his contention, the petitioner based his claim that beside the payment of Rs.20,000/- as advance he paid the balance amount of Rs.3,30,000/- upon a receipt (appearing at page no.24). But on careful perusal of the said receipt, I find that the receipt does not lay down how such heavy amount Rs.3,30,000/- was paid as consideration money for sale of the vehicle in question. The contention of the opposite party no.1 is that such receipt was granted for other purpose to facilitate loan etc. by the petitioner.

(3.) Upon due consideration of the matter in dispute, I am of the view that the matter should be finally settled by a trial. At present, the petitioner could not show any paper supporting payment of such heavy amount either by cash or by cheque or by any other manner. This being the position, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate has rightly issued process for seizure of the vehicle stating the ground justifying his action. The order cannot be said to be perverse at all and it is not without any jurisdiction at all. Therefore, I am of the view that there is nothing to interfere with the order impugned.