UPENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 16 -11 -98 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st. Class, Patna City in C.A. 393 of 1998 by which he has rejected the petitioner's prayer to release the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner claimed himself to be the proprietor of M/s. Mahanth Motors and alleged that he has given two trucks trailers bearing No. BR -1G -4191 and BR -1G -4291 to the son of Laxmi Devi on oral contract for seven months on the condition inter alia, that the opposite party had to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/ - per month to the petitioner had Rs. 20,000/ - per month to be deposited in the State Bank of India, Patna. According to the petitioner, after the expiry of the contract period, the son of opposite party neither returned the trucks nor paid the contract amount to the petitioner. On the basis of the allegations made by the petitioner, a criminal case was registered against the accused namely Bhuneshwar Singh and in connection with that case, the vehicles were seized by the police. The petitioner and opposite party No. 2 filed their respective petitions before the Court below for the release of the vehicles in their favour and both of them put their respective claims of ownership of the vehicles. The claim of the petitioner is that both the vehicles were registered in his name who is sole proprietor of M/s. Mahanth Motors. The petitioner further claims that the Insurance and tax token of both the vehicles. stand in the name of M/s. Mahanth Motors of which the petitioner is the proprietor and therefore, he is the real owner of the vehicles. On the other hand, the opposite party No. 2 claims that she is the proprietor of M/s. Mahanth Motors and both the vehicles were purchased by her on hire purchase agreement and she has been paying tax and instalment to the Bank regularly. The further case of the opposite party is that the petitioner was working in the firm, M/s. Mahanth Motors, and he was acting as representative. She -has further claimed that she is in custody of the owner -book of the vehicles. The learned Court below heard both the parties and disposed of their applications by passing the impugned order holding that the vehicles should be released in favour of opposite party No, 2.

(3.) FROM perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Court below passing the impugned order called for a report from the District Transport Officer, Patna. The Court below after going through the report and the documents of ownership of the vehicles filed by both the parties and after considering the other evidence found that the opposite party No. 2 is entitled to get the interim custody of the vehicle. Accordingly, it was directed to release the vehicles in her favour. In my opinion, the Court below has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that while passing the order for interim custody of the vehicles, the Court has not to investigate as to who is the real owner of the vehicles. There is no dispute with the legal proposition as submitted by Mr. Prasad. The Court below, in fact, after perusal of the documents found that it is the opposite party in whose favour, vehicles should be released. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 produced before me the original owner -book of the vehicles. From perusal of which it transpires that the vehicle was registered in the name of M/s. Mahanth Motors and the name of Upendra Singh was mentioned as representative. The original tax token and other documents have also been produced in which The name of M/s. Mahanth Motors have been mentioned. Similarly the tax token, paying receipts of State Bank of India have been produced from which it appears that the instalment of the loan has been regularly paid by the opposite party No. 2. Besides the above, some other documents have been filed and annexed with the counter -affidavit which shows that the opposite party has been described as proprietor of the firm.