GADADHAR BALIARSINGH Vs. SRINIVAS MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this Criminal Revision has assailed the order dated 16-5-1988 passed by the Sessions Judge, Puri in Criminal Revision No. 97 of 1987 releasing the vehicle, a truck in favour of Opposite Party No. 1 under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Succinctly stated, the case of the petitioner is that Opposite Party No. 1 is the registered owner of a truck bearing No. ORP 3395 and Opp. Party No. 2 is the financier of Opposite Party No. 1 in purchasing the said truck. According to the petitioner, by suppressing the fact of financial assistance of Opposite Party No. 2 purchase of the truck, Opp. Party No. 1 admittedly the registered owner of the truck, had approached him for a short term loan of Rs. 25,000.00 and obtained that loan from him by making mortgage of the said truck in favour of the petitioner. While the petitioner was in possession of the truck as the pawnee, one FIR was lodged by the father of Opp. Party No. 1 in Delenga P.S. alleging that the truck had been taken away from the lawful possession of his son. The police seized the vehicle from the bari of the petitioner on 10-4-1987 in Delanga P.S. Case No. 42 of 1987 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 483 of 1987 in the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Puri filed under Section 379/352, Indian Penal Code. The present petitioner and Opp. Party Nos. 1 and 2 filed separate petitioner under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Puri for release of the vehicle each claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof.

(3.) The lower court by order dated 17-7-1987 held that the possession of the vehicle by petitioner No. 1 was lawful on the basis of the agreement annexed as Annexure-1 to the Criminal Revision purported to be an agreement between Opposite Party No. 1 as registered owner of the vehicle and the petitioner which the opposite Party No. 1, the owner had pawned his vehicle in favour of the petitioner. The trial court accordingly passed an order releasing the truck in favour of this petitioner on executing a bond for Rs. 2 lakhs with one surety for the like amount and with a direction to produce the truck as and when required by the court. The petitions of Opposite Parties 1 and 2 for taking possession of the vehicle were rejected.