SATISH GURJAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the Court:- This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner assailing order dated 18.07.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur, by which revision petition filed by petitioner was rejected and order of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur, dated 25.02.2009 was upheld. The learned Magistrate, by the aforesaid order, rejected petitiner's application under Section 451 Cr.P.C.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner argued that as per the case set up by the police one Bheem Singh had purchased a tractor on loan advanced by Bank and since then he was in default while making payment of installments to the Bank; he lodged a false report that his tractor has been stolen by someone. During investigation, the police found that Bheem Singh himself had sold the tractor as he did not want to pay the installments to the Bank and therefore he himself committed an offence under Section 406 IPC and the petitioner was in no way involved in that offence. What is alleged against the petitioner is that he was told by some broker that one tractor was available for sale. The petitioner while going to purchase the said tractor with currency notes of Rs.2,62,000/-, was arrested by the police and recovered the said currency notes from the petitioner. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner took the amount of Rs.1,17,196/- from firm Gopal Ji Traders Kosikalan and the amount of Rs.1,00,839/- from some other firm for sale of crop and that he was going to Malarna Dungar with Dharasingh Gurjar for purchase of tractor. It is also not the case of the police that some transaction had been finalized or that the petitioner had actually purchased the tractor. The courts below have illegally rejected his application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for refund of the said amount recovered from him by the police, on Supurdginama. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the matter is still pending for investigation of the case, the alleged FIR was lodged about one and a half year ago, so far nothing is found against the petitioner of his involvement in commission of offence; no one has come forward to claim the currency note; the petitioner is only the claimant; this is his hard-earned money which is lying with the police and otherwise also if the currency notes are not handed over to the petitioner, there is every apprehension that the same may be rendered useless.