GIRRAJ PRASAD SAINI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under section 482 Crimial P.C. is directed against the order dated 28.2.2000 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat in Crl. Revision No. 7/2000 whereby the revision petition was dismissed confirming the order dated 18.2.2000 of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran. The revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.2.2000 of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran as above whereby the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate refused to release the truck No. RJ 02/G 0727 on superdinama to the petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the said truck was involved in an accident and was seized in 34/2000 P.S. Raipur. The truck is registered in the name of the father of the petitioner Sh. Ram Kumar Saini. The petitioner's case is that Sh. Ram Kumar Saini is missing since 30th June, 1995. He was a mentally unsound person. He could not be traced despite best efforts and a report was lodged in the P.S. Rajgarh Dist. Alwar on 8.7.1995. The petitioner, Shanti Devi mother, Bhagwan Sahai and Hari Kishan brothers are the legal representatives of Ram Kumar Saini who also gave an affidavit that Sh. Ram Kumar Saini is missing being mentally unsound and authorised the petitioner to receive the truck on superdginama. The petitioner Giriraj Saini filed an application before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran to take the vehicle on superdginama which was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not the registered owner of the vehicle. The petitioner's father, even if missing, seven years have not passed therefore a presumption cannot be drawn that Sh. Ram Kumar Saini has died. This fact cannot be accepted even on the basis of the affidavit filed by the legal representatives. The petitioner and the legal legal representatives did not take any steps before the registration authority to have their name transferred in the registration certificate. The petitioner filed a revision petition but his contention did not prevail even before the learned lower court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is entitled to possession of the truck on the ground that he is the son of the registered owner Shri Ram Kumar Saini. Mother and other brothers have executed a Mukhtiarnama in favour of petitioner to receive the truck on superdginama. It is also prima facie made out that Sh. Ram Kumar Saini is not traceable and a report to this effect has been lodged at the police station. It is further argued that under section 457 Cr. P.C. it is not even necessary that a person entitled to possession of truck must necessarily have registration of the vehicle in his favour. Learned trial court has therefore failed in exercising the jurisdiction which has resulted in manifest injustice and abuse of process of the court.