RAJA RAM @ RAJU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging the order dated 23.11.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sikrai, District Dausa whereby he has declined to release the jeep belonging to the petitioner on Supurdagi. He is further challenging the order dated 3.12.2005 passed by the Special Judge, Dausa whereby the learned Special Judge has confirmed the order dated 23.11.2005.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that two different jeeps were seized by the police in F.I.R. No. 390/2005 registered for offence under Sections 366, 376(2)(g) read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. The jeep bearing registration No. RJ-05-T- 0134 was initially owned by Ishwar Singh S/o Shri Himmat Singh. However, according the present petitioner, vide agreement dated 18.2.2005 the said jeep was sold by Ishwar Singh, the registered owner, to the present petitioner for a value of Rs. 1,26,000/-. A copy of the registration papers showing Ishwar Singh as a registered owner and a copy of the agreement dated 18.2.2005 are attached with this petition as Annexures 1 and 2. The petitioner has further stated that since the said jeep has been financed by Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company, therefore, the registration of the jeep is not in his name. Since, the petitioner had bought the said jeep from the registered owner, he moved an application for Supurdagi of the said jeep before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sikarai. However, vide order dated 23.11.2005, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the petition ostensibly on the ground that the vehicle is involved in a serious offence. Subsequently, the petitioner moved a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Dausa. However, vide order dated 3.12.2005; the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition. Hence, this petition before us.

(3.) Mr. Pankaj Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the investigation in the case is over and the challan has been filed. Therefore, the police does not require the jeep for any further investigational purpose. Still the jeep is lying in the police station and is exposed to the natural elements. He has relied on the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2002 (10) SCC 283 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines for releasing a seized vehicle by the Courts. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, both the learned Magistrate and the learned Judge have ignored these guidelines.