GOGRAJ CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter comes up on an application for early hearing of the misc. petition. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed and the misc. petition is taken up for hearing today itself.

(2.) The present misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.06.2020 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, Distt. Pali whereby, while confirming the order passed by the trial court dated 12.06.2020, the revisional court refused to release the vehicle in favour of petitioner.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is purchaser of the vehicle from one Prem Prakash vide agreement dated 17.02.2019 who purchased the vehicle from Lal Ram Jat who is the registered owner. Thus, petitioner is the claimant of the vehicle and if the vehicle is not released on 'superdginama' and allowed to lie in open place at the police station, it will get damaged. It is further argued that vehicle in question is not required for any further investigation, therefore, the vehicle is liable to be released on 'superdginama'.