RANJIT DEBNATH Vs. PARIMAL CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) By order dated 28.5.97 and 9.7.97 service of notices upon the opposite parties Nos.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted. None appears for the respondent-opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Mr. D. Goswami, learned Public Prosecutor appears for the State. The dispute relates to interim custody of a truck bearing registration No. ASN-4623 Engine No. 692D05088813 and Chassis No. 344050083229, which originally belong to one Jagannath Pandit, son of Shri Jitendra Chandra Pandit, which was purchased by him through the State Bank of India, Nagaon Branch where it was hypothecated against the loan. Since the said Jagannath Pandit could not repay the Joan, he proposes to the petitioner for sale of the vehicle and the petitioner agreed to purchase it. He paid money to him so as to pay for the dues of the Bank. The registration certificate is produced as Annexure-1 alongwith this petition. The sale receipt dated 16.6.95 in favour of the petitioner is filed as Annexure-2. The necessary formalities were gone through for transfer of the vehicle in the petitioner's name, but the transfer could not be effected as the truck in question was in the garage for necessary repairs. This garage is of opposite party No.2 it remains there for about three months for repairs. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had to go to Calcutta for his business purpose, on his return when he asked for delivery of the aforesaid truck, the opposite party No. 2 declined to deliver the same under the pretext that it did not belong to the petitioner. It is alleged that in the meanwhile, the opposite party No. 2 who was entrusted of the truck for repair had got it re-registered in the name of his wife, opposite parry No. 3 on 14.12.95 in Nagaland and from Nagaland the truck was brought and it was transferred to opposite parry No. 1 and the registration number was changed at Morigaon in the name of the opposite party No.1. Thus, the registration number of the vehicle is being changed so as to defeat the petitioner's claim and frustrate the criminal prosecution lodged by him. The petitioner applied for interim custody of the vehicle which has been refused by the impugned order dated 11.2.97 by the learned Magistrate placing reliance on a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court as reported in 1993 Crl. LJ. 1114.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that handing over interim custody to the registered owner is not a Rule of universal application. He placed reliance on a judgment of this Court, Shri Swapao Dam- Vs-Shri Golap Chand Gupta & Anr as reported in 19S8 (1) GLR 459, wherein this Court has held.