SATNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated October 11, 1990, and order dated January 21, 1991, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anoopgarh, by which the learned Magistrate dismissed the application for delivery of Raida (cart) to the petitioner.

(2.) ON September 11, 1990, Fakruddin, Sub -Inspector of Police Station, Anoopgarh, while he was on patrolling duty, checked the raida (cart), which was driven by the petitioner and which was carrying ten passengers. The Raida did not contain any number plate nor was it registered. A power engine of more than 8 to 10 Horse Power was fixed on this Raida (cart) and it was having four wheels. A case under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act was registered against the petitioner Satnam Singh and the Raida (cart) was seized by the police, which is lying in the premises of the Police Station, Anoopgarh. After the seizure of the Raida (cart), an application was moved by the petitioner before the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anoopgarh, for the custody of this vehicle. The learned Magistrate by his order dated October 11, 1990, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the Raida (cart) in question was driven by an engine of 8 to 10 H.P. and was having four wheels and, therefore, it comes within the definition of 'motor vehicle' and it was neither registered nor was insured and even the tax was not deposited and the petitioner was not having even the driving licence and, therefore, it cannot be given to the petitioner. Dissatisfied with the order dated October 11, 1990, passed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner preferred a revision -petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, who, by his order dated November 6, 1990, rejected the revision -petition on the ground that the order passed by the learned lower Court is an interlocutory order and, therefore, no revision -petition is maintainable. After the rejection of the revision -petition, the petitioner again moved an application for the custody of the vehicle before the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anoopgarh, on the ground that the order being an interlocutory order, therefore, the second application is maintainable. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated January 21, 1991, rejected the same by holding that there is no change in the circumstances and the present application has been moved almost on the same grounds on which the earlier application was dismissed. He, therefore, rejected the second application for the custody of the Raida (cart). It is against both these orders dated October 11, 1990 as well as the order dated January 21, 1991 that the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Raida (cart) in question has been placed at the Police Station, Anoopgarh, in open space. The keeping of the Raida (cart) at the police station in open space will damage its tyres and tubes and even the engine of the Raida will, also, be damaged. He has further submitted that the Raida is being used for agricultural purposes and it is, therefore, exempted for being registered etc. He, therefore, prayed that the learned Magistrate committed an error in not giving the custody of the Raida (cart) to the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned lower Court.