Patna High Court
Ravindra Nath Singh vs State Of Bihar And Anr. on 4 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002CRILJ3395
Author: S.K. Singh
Bench: S.K. Singh
ORDER S.K. Singh, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. Petitioner is an accused in a criminal case which was filed by opposite party No. 2. The allegations are to the effect that complainant owns Swaraj Tractor bearing registration No. UP-54A-5740 and in the night previous to 10-12-2000 the petitioner and some other persons forcibly took the said tractor along with its driver to their Darwaza. When the complainant went to make enquiry he was abused and forced to run away.
3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 7-12-2001 by which learned Magistrate has rejected petitioner's prayer for release of the tractor in his favour and has allowed release in favour of OP No. 2 on five conditions mentioned in the last part of the order.
4. According to petitioner, the learned Magistrate should have allowed the release in his favour for the reasons that the tractor was seized from his Darwaza and secondly, because as per a sale letter the said tractor has been sold by OP No. 2 to petitioner on 9-11-2000 for Rs. 1.95 lac. According to the petitioner, Rs. 1,80 lac was paid and Rs. 15,000/- remained to be paid because till then the registration of the tractor had not been transferred in favour of OP No. 2 who had himself purchased it on 2-11-2000.
5. On behalf of the petitioner the release of the tractor in favour of OP No. 2 has further been assailed on the ground that registration in favour of OP No. 2 was done on 20-1-2001 subsequent to the filing of the criminal case and hence, the same will not give any benefit to OP No. 2. According to the petitioner, he has been cheated by OP No. 2 and hence, he has subsequently filed a complaint case for cheating against OP No. 2 and summons has been issued in that case.
6. On behalf of OP No. 2 an objection has been taken to the maintainability of the revision application on the ground that an order for release of the seized tractor is merely an arrangement for custody of the property involved in the case at the maximum till the conclusion of the trial. Against such interlocutory order no revision application is maintainable and in support of this submission reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court reported in 1993 BBCJ (HC) 436 (Arvind Kumar Singh v. State).
7. It has further been submitted that there are larger number of decisions of various Courts to the effect that in the matter of release of motor vehicles the registration book is of prime importance because it is. the registered owner who is authorised to use the vehicle and bear responsibility under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. On that basis it has been submitted that once the vehicle was registered in the name of OP No. 2, the learned Magistrate acted in accordance with law in allowing release in favour of the OP No. 2, the complainant/ informant.
8. In reply, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that release of seized goods is an important issue and hence, the impugned order cannot be described as purely interlocutory. It was further submitted on the basis of ajudgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Kesho Lal v. State of Rajasthan 1996 Cri LJ 740 that a presumption under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act is always there that the person in actual physical possession of the property is the owner of such property unless contrary is shown or established. In the present case, according to petitioner, the possession of the petitioner is evident from the seizure list and hence, petitioner should be presumed to be the owner of the tractor.
9. Considering the rival claims of the parties, this Court finds that the principle in the case of Keshu Lal v. State of Rajasthan (1996 Cri LJ 740) is of no help to the petitioner. In that case there was no allegation of dispossession of rightful owner by force as is alleged in the present case nor there was any rival claimant for the goods in that case. In the present case, the sale of tractor as claimed by the petitioner is not admitted. At present this defence remains to be examined by the trial Court and hence, it will not be proper to allow release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner on the basis of his defence which is yet to be tested when he is facing the allegations that he has taken possession of the tractor by force. Thus, this Court finds no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order of the learned Magistrate.
10. The objection raised by the opposite party on the ground of maintainability is also found to have substance because as per judgment of this Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Singh (supra) the impugned order must be held to be purely interlocutory in nature against which revision under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable. Since this Court, in appropriate case, may interfere with such an order in exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. hence, the matter was also considered on merits. Since no illegality has been found in the impugned order and the arrangement is only till conclusion of the trial on proper terms and conditions, this Court is not persuaded to interfere even in exercise of its inherent power.
11. This application is accordingly dismissed.