Delhi District Court
Babu Ram vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 14 October, 2013
Babu Ram Vs The State of NCT of Delhi
CR No. 97/13
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DWARKA COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of :
Babu Ram s/o Sh. Rattan Singh
R/O RZ2, Durga Park, Street No.1,
New Delhi
... Petitioner/Revisionist
VERSUS
The State of NCT of Delhi
Through Public Prosecutor
... Respondent
In FIR No. 312/08, PS Dabri,
under Section 420/468/471 IPC
CR No.97/13
Date of Institution:5.6.2013
Reserved for orders on: 09.09.2013
Judgment announced on:14.10.2013 ( Allowed)
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 4.5.2013 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, whereby superdari of car no. DL 2FEF 0786 was cancelled.
2. As per the prosecution story, it is alleged that on the complaint of complainant Sania Zaidi the said car was seized by CR No. 97/13 Page 1 of 5 14.10.2013 Babu Ram Vs The State of NCT of Delhi CR No. 97/13 the police. It is further alleged that after due investigation, the police has filed cancellation report before the ld. MM. It is further alleged that the petitioner filed application for superdari of the said vehicle before the ld. MM and the complainant had also filed an application for superdari of said vehicle stating that the said vehicle had been stolen by the petitioner. It is further alleged that Ld. MM called detailed report from the IO and also called for FSL report regarding sale of said vehicle to the petitioner by the complainant Sania Zaidi and her signatures on Form 29 & 30 and as per FSL report, the signatures of complainant Sania Zaidi tallied as genuine on the said document .
3. It is further alleged that Ld. MM perused original documents i.e RC, sale documents and other documents executed by complainant to the petitioner from the original file produced by the IO from transport authority and found that the said vehicle was in the name of the petitioner. It is further alleged the said vehicle was seized from possession of the petitioner . It is further stated that after considering all the documents , FSL report and comparing with record of transport authority and considering the fact that the vehicle was seized from possession of the petitioner, the said vehicle was released on superdari by ld. MM vide order dt. 1.11.2011. It is further contended that later vide order dt. 4.5.2013 the superdari of the CR No. 97/13 Page 2 of 5 14.10.2013 Babu Ram Vs The State of NCT of Delhi CR No. 97/13 said vehicle was cancelled without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned order dt. 4.5.2013 , the petitioner filed this petition.
5. It is further contended the vehicle in question has been disposed of by the complainant to the petitioner and after going through the record, the Ld. Trial Court released the said vehicle in favour of the petitioner but later on, the Ld. Trial Court without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner cancelled the superdari of the said vehicle which is violation of the principles of natural justice.
6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent/ State has submitted that ld. MM has rightly cancelled superdari of the said vehicle on the basis of FSL report dt. 17.10.2011 filed by the IO on the complaint filed by the complainant and in the said report of FSL, it was observed that signatures of the complainant are not matched with the form 29 and form 30 i.e. documents Q2 to Q5. It is further submitted that the there is no illegality in the impugned order and this revision petitions deserves to be dismissed.
7. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and gone CR No. 97/13 Page 3 of 5 14.10.2013 Babu Ram Vs The State of NCT of Delhi CR No. 97/13 through the record of Ld. Trial Court.
8. A bare perusal of application for release of said vehicle moved before the court depicts that the petitioner had also taken the stand in the said application that he had purchased the said car for an amount of consideration of Rs.1,91,000/ after withdrawing amount of Rs.1,80,000/ from bank and Rs11,000/ in cash from the complainant and the complainant had to pay the sale amount of the said vehicle as Rs.1,90,196/ to the concerned bank and had to obtain NOC from ICICI bank by the complainant. The stand of withdrawal of amount by the petitioner from his account tallied with statement of account dt. 9.4.20907 and the receipt of ICICI Bank also shows that payment of Rs.1,90,196/ was made in cash on 17.4.2007.
9. Without commenting on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate that as the impugned order has not been passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner deserves a right of hearing as such, the impugned order is hereby set aside with a direction to the Ld. Trial Court to pass fresh order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before passing an order in respect of the superdari of the vehicle in question, with these observations, this petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
CR No. 97/13 Page 4 of 5 14.10.2013 Babu Ram Vs The State of NCT of Delhi CR No. 97/13
10. The parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court on 28.10.2013.
11. Record of the Ld. Trial Court be sent back alongwith a copy of order for information and compliance.
12. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Vijay Kumar Dahiya)
on the 14h Day of October, 2013 ASJ/ Dwarka Courts
New Delhi/14.10.2013
CR No. 97/13 Page 5 of 5 14.10.2013