ALLARAKH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the miscellaneous petitions arise out of the same order of the learned Magistrate and, therefore, can be conveniently disposed of by a common order. Looking to the controversy involved, I had sent for the record and I am of the opinion that both the petitions can be disposed of at the admission stage.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of these petitions are these: Asgar Ali was the registered owner of truck No. RJZ 1871 and chassis No. of the said truck was 312056, 1602344. The said Asgar Ali was in need of some finances and, therefore, he is said to have got the truck financed from Rathore Finance Corporation, Sojat Road, Pali and Rs. 17,500.00 were taken under the hire purchase agreement. Allarakh was the guarantor for the payment of Rs. 17,500.00 by Shri Asgar Ali, It is alleged that few instalments could not be paid and, therefore, the aforesaid truck was given to Allarakh under an oral agreement that Allarakh will pay Rs. 200.00 per day till such time as the entire loan of the financier is wiped off. It is said that the entire loan was paid off and, therefore in order to deprive Asgar Ali of the truck and its income, Allarakh got the chassis No. and Engine No. erased writ changed and gave out that he has purchased the truck from one Avtarsingh, who in turn, had purchased it from army disposal, and he got fresh registration certificate of the truck from the R.T.O., Jodhpur. The R.T.O. assigned registration No. RSN 2898. Asgar Ali filed a report before the R.T.O. who deputed one Prahalad, Transport Inspector, to make an enquiry into the matter and the Transport Inspector, after enquiry, reported that there were erasers on the chassis No. and engine No. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against Allarakh under Sec. 420, 467 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. The truck was seized and it is lying in the custody of the police for more than 11/2 year. Earlier also, two applications for the custody of the truck were filed: one by Asgar Ali and the other by Allarakh but the learned Magistrate disallowed both the applications and this Court, at that stage, refused to interfere and directed the parties to move afresh in the light of the material which may be available. Both the parties again filed applications for the custody of the truck under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate has again dismissed both the applications.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Singhvi submits that there is absolutely no material on record to connect truck No.RSN 2898 with Truck No. RJZ 1871, He submits that from the report of the Director of Forensic Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur, as well as from the information furnished by Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. under its letter dated Aug. 8, 1980; it is very well established that the chassis No. of the truck is 312056, 5615832 and the Engine No. is 312915, 5616325. Mr. Rathore, on the other hand, contents that from the report of the Director of Forensic Laboratory, it can be said that there are erasers on the chassis No. as well as engine No. and, therefore, it cannot be said that Allarakh is entitled to the possession of the truck.