SURESH KUMAR PURANMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dt. 21. 4. 2001, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Ajmer, affirmed the order dated 18. 11. 2000 by which learned Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Ajmer, released the vehicle in question in favour of respondent No. 3, through respondent No. 2.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that Truck No. GJ-18-T-269, was purchased by the petitioner on hire-purchase basis from the respondent No. 3 Tata Finance Ltd. An agreement to this effect was executed on 21. 8. 1997. On 14. 10. 2000, the respondent Company took possession of the said vehicle on account of over due amount. THEreupon a complaint on behalf of the petitioner was lodged against the respondent Company. It is not disputed that after investigation, final report was submitted by the Police in the Court.

(3.) THE case of the Tata Company was that some amount on account of interest and other expenses was due, hence the Company was entitled to the possession of the vehicle. THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the respondent No. 3 Company itself was and still not definite as to how much amount was due as the respondent No. 3 sent a letter Annexure 1 to the petitioner and this letter was received on 4. 11. 2000. Vide this letter only a sum of Rs. 5501/- was said to be due and this amount was paid by the petitioner on 7. 11. 2000 and copy of the receipt has also been submitted as Annexure 3. Vide Annexure R. 2 a sum of Rs. 38,129/- was due as on 25. 10. 2000. This is the document showing the statement of account of respondent No. 3 itself. Subsequently the respondent company, vide Annexure 4 informed the petitioner that only a sum of Rs. 31,862/- was due as on 15. 11. 2000 according to Annexure 4 and this is also a document containing the statement of the account of the respondent Company. It was also contended that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 60,000/- on 21. 11. 99 but only a sum of Rs. 52,300/- was credited in his account and this fact is also evident from Annexure 4. It was also argued that at Page 16 of Annexure R. 3, again a statement of account of the Respondent Company, a sum of Rs. 8,000/- has been charged on 23. 3. 2000 as re-possession charges of the vehicle and again a sum of Rs. 7,000/- has been charged on 18. 10. 2000 as re-possession charges of the same vehicle. It was also contended that in para 4 of the reply of this petition filed on 10. 1. 2002, it is stated that the outstanding amount till now is 49,165/- while before the learned Magistrate, it was a case of the respondent Company that a sum of Rs. 53,383/- is due and thus the statements of account are incorrect. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that letter of outstanding balance of Rs. 5501/- was sent by mistake and various details of the outstanding balance have been shown from time to time and on account of minor mistakes in accounts, if any, no adverse inference can be drawn against the respondents Nos. 2 and 3.