RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for both the sides and perused the records. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner purchased a Jeep bearing No. HR 10-B-6819 on 5.2.1998 under a financial agreement dated 2.1.1998 with the second respondent-herein whereby the second-respondent has given financial assistance to the petitioner of a sum of Rs. Two lakhs. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this vehicle which was being used by the petitioner was charge-sheeted by the transport officials on 24.5.2000 under annexure P-3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the registration certificate in respect of this vehicle stands in the name of the petitioner (copy annexure P-1). He also points out that the second respondent-herein moved an application before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, for the release of the vehicle in his favour on superdari (annexure P-4). But, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat by order dated 27.7.2000 (anneuxre P-5) directed that the vehicle be returned on superdari to its registered owner on certain conditions. He also points out that as against this order the second respondent-herein preferred a Criminal Revision No. 24 dated 2000 before Sessions Court, Sonepat, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, allowed the Revision setting aside the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and consequently directed that the vehicle in question be released on superdari to the second respondent-herein by his order dated 13.9.2000 (annexure P-6).

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the revision petition before the Sessions Court, he was neither made a party nor a notice was given nor any opportunity of hearing was given, which is contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. Rajendra Kumar, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 401, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though the statute does not expressly require a notice to be issued or a hearing to be given to the parties adversely affected and though the statute is silent and does not expressly require issue of any notice, there is in the eye of law a necessary implication that the parties adversely affected should be heard before the Court makes an order of return of the seized property.

(3.) IN view of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle, and that the possession of the vehicle was taken from him, the claim of the petitioner for the vehicle being released to him on superdari ought to have been considered. This is especially so when the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, had passed the order to return the vehicle to the registered owner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also raised a legal objection that in view of the provisions contained in Section 20(i) of the Hire-Purchase Act, 1972, the owner could take possession only by way of filing an application or suit before the Court inasmuch as the value of the vehicle exceeds Rs. 15,000/- and inasmuch as the hirer has paid more than 9/10ths of the amount due. As against this, the learned counsel for the second respondent contends that he has to verify whether there was notification by the Central Government regarding the condition that the petitioner should have paid 9/10ths this of the amount due.