MOHAMMAD DIN Vs. STATE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this criminal revision petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.02.2018 passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, in file No. 01/Appeal and order dated 31.01.2018, passed by the Forest Magistrate, Jammu.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner is a registered owner of one Scorpio bearing No. JK02BS-1234, which has been purchased by him from one-Jan Mohd. S/o Shah Mohd. R/o Bathandi, Jammu in the year, 2006 for consideration of Rs.14,00,000/-(Rupees Fourteen Lakh). After making payment of the entire consideration amount of the vehicle, it was transferred in the name of the petitioner by making necessary entries in the record of the concerned registering authority. When the petitioner purchased the vehicle form the erstwhile owner, its Registration Certificate was never reflected about any hire purchase agreement or hypothecation of the vehicle with any bank or financial institution. The petitioner, as a bonafide purchaser, inspected the documents and satisfied himself about the vehicle being free of any encumbrance and, accordingly, the petitioner paid Rs.14,00,000/- to the ex-owner and also got the vehicle transferred in his name in the Registration Certificate. Moreover, the Insurance Certificate and other documents were also transferred in the name of the petitioner with respect to the vehicle. Since purchase of the vehicle, the petitioner was continuously and peacefully used the vehicle to the exclusion of the whole world till 23.01.2017, when the vehicle was seized by the respondent No.1 in a false and frivolous case bearing FIR No.35/2017, registered at Police Station, Crime Branch for commission of offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC. The respondent No.1 seized the vehicle from the possession of the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner filed an application, seeking release of the vehicle before the Forest Magistrate, Jammu on 23.01.2018. In the meanwhile, respondent No.2-Bank also filed an application, seeking release of the said vehicle. Both the applications were considered and decided by a common order on 30.01.2018 by the learned Magistrate, directing the release of the vehicle in favour of the respondent No.2 and declining the claim of the petitioner for release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. The aforementioned order was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu through an appeal bearing No.01/Appeal, which has been dismissed on 09.02.2018.

(3.) In the instant revision petition, petitioner has challenged both impugned orders on the following grounds:-