BENI DAN Vs. LAXMICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been directed against the judgement dated 18-1-1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, whereby he allowed the appeal filed by non-petitioner Laxmi Chand, set aside the order dated 1-12-1994 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer and directed that Truck No. RJ-15 G 0093 be taken from the possession of petitioner Benidan and his driver Inder Singh and the same be handed over to non-petitioner Laxmichand.

(2.) Stated in succinct, the necessary facts for disposal of this petition are that on 22-6-93 the S. H. C., Police Station, Jaisalmer checked truck No. RJ 15 G 0093, which was being driven by Inder Singh, the driver of petitioner Beni Dan. The said driver did not possess the registration certificate, insurance certificate, and any other documents pertaining to the said truck. The S. H. O. seized the said truck under Section 207, Motor Vehicles Act. On 23-6-94, he submitted a criminal complaint against petitioner Benidan, as the alleged owner of the said truck and Inder Singh, driver in the Court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer. The case was transferred to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. On 24-6-94, non-petitioner Laxmichand filed an application under Section 451, Cr. P.C. praying for the interim custody of the said truck alleging that initially the registration number of the said truck was GJ-2-T 7740, that it was registered in the name of Ishwar Bhai, that later on he purchased the said truck from Ishwar Bhai that its new registration number is RJ-15 G 0093, and that now he is its registered owner. He further mentioned that the police has now seized the said vehicle and that Beni Dan has also submitted an application for taking the said truck on Supardginama for which he is not entitled. He also mentioned in his application that he has deposited the road tax, that the insurance certificate has been issued in his favour and that if the said truck is given on Supardginama to any other person, still then he would be liable for all liabilities being its registered owner. Along with his application, he also submitted copy of registration certificate dated 19-11-93, permit for goods carrier valid for the period from 20-12-93 to 19-12-98 and a photostat copy of the order dated 1-9-93 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 392/93, "Beni Dan v. State and Ishwar Bhai Keshav Bhai Patel," whereby the truck bearing Registration No. GJ-2T 7740, which was earlier seized by the S. H. O., Police Station, Jaisalmer under Section 207, Motor Vehicles Act, was ordered to be given on Supardginama under Section 451, Cr. P.C. to its the then registered owner Ishwar Bhai.

(3.) Petitioner Beni Dan in his reply dated 30-9-94 as also in the application averred that non-petitioner Laxmi Chand Rathi under the alleged capacity of power of attorney holder of Ishwar Bhai, the registered owner had already sold truck No. GJ 2-T 7740 to him in March 1992 and delivered the possession thereof and that thereafter he was in continuous possession of the said truck and plying the same, that earlier on 22-6-93, the said truck was seized by the S.H.O., Police Station, Jaisalmer under Section 207, Motor Vehicles Act and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 1-9-93 had directed that the said truck be given on Supardginama to its registered owner Ishwar Bhai. He further averred that against the said order dated 1-9-93 he filed a revision petition in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, but during the pendency of the said revision petition, a compromise was entered between him and Laxmi Chand and a fresh agreement dated 20-9-93 was executed by them and the possession of the truck in dispute was handed over to him and as such in pursuance of the said compromise, he did not press his revision petition. He further averred that Laxmi Chand filed criminal complaint against him under Section 107, Cr. P.C., wherein he has clearly admitted that he had sold the said truck to petitioner. The petitioner pleaded that as per terms of the agreement dated 1-9-93 Laxmi Chand agreed to get the registration of the truck in dispute transferred in the name of arbitrator Sultan Singh, till he (the petitioner) deposited all the installments, but instead he fraudulently got the said truck registered in his name and contravened the terms of the said agreement. He further pleaded that the said truck continued in his possession and was being plied by him and was seized by the police on 22-6-94 from his possession and that the road tax and the insurance of the motor vehicle were also paid by him. He alleged that Laxmi Chand had handed over the original registration certificate, permit and other documents of the truck to Inder Singh, driver, which were lost on 30-12-93 and for that he had lodged FIR dated 31-12-93 at Police Station, Barmer. However, later on he came to know that on 19-12-93 Laxmi Chand in contravention of the terms of the agreement illegally got the registration of said vehicle in his name. The petitioner further pleaded that non-petitioner Laxmi Chand in collusion with the police got the said truck seized, that in fact he is the de facto and true owner of the said truck and was prepared to execute undertaking and prayed that the said truck be handed over to him on Supardginama. In support of his application, he also submitted affidavits of Sultan Singh and Inder Singh the photo state copy of the agreement dated 20-9-93, certified copy of the compromise application dated 22-4-93 filed by Laxmi Chand and Beni Dan before the S.D.M., Jaisalmer, certified copy of the order dated 23-9-93 of the S.D.M. Jaisalmer passed in Cr. Case No. 137/93, "State v. Benidan dropping the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 107, Cr. P.C. on the basis of compromise, the copy of the criminal complaint filed under Section 107, 116 (3), Cr. P.C. copy of the statement of Laxmichand dated 23-7-93 recorded by the S.H.O. in inquiry under Sections 107, 116(3), Cr. P.C., wherein the former admitted the factum of sale of the truck in question in favour of petitioner Beni Dan, the copy of complaint dated 23-7-93 filed by Laxmichand to the S.H.O. Police Station, Jaisalmer, the copy of road tax dated 19-4-94 for an amount of Rs. 1534/- deposited on behalf of Laxmi Narain by the petitioner, the copy of insurance over note valid from 15-3-94 to 14-3-95 of the said truck, its fitness certificate valid from 29-3-94 to 19-3-95, copy of the petitioner's application dated 24-4-94 to the District Transport Officer, Jaisalmer alleging that the disputed truck and its documents were with him and that duplicate copies of those documents be not issued in favour of Laxmi Narain, copy of report No. 162 dated 31-12-93 of the daily diary of Police Station, Jaisalmer of petitioner Beni Dan alleging that the registration certificate and other documents of the truck in dispute have been lost and the copy of the notice dated 24-1-94 issued by Shri Rani Dan, Advocate to non-petitioner Laxmichand, application dated 28-12-93 filed by the petitioner to the D.T.O., Jaisalmer that the truck in dispute be not transferred to any other person's name, copy of application dated 9-2-94 filed by the petitioner in the District Consumer Forum, Jaisalmer against Laxmi Chand praying that the latter be directed to hand over the original registration certificate, permit, token etc. of the disputed truck to him, the copy of the reply dated 14-9-94 filed by Laxmichand and the copy of the order dated 28-10-94 passed by the District Consumer Forum rejecting petitioner's said application on the ground that the same was not maintainable.