Delhi District Court
Cri. Rev. No.15/11 Atul Kumar Sharma vs . State on 14 July, 2011
1
CRI. REV. NO.15/11 ATUL KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE
IN THE COURT OF SH. B. S. CHUMBAK, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE:DLEHI
Case ID Number 02402R0155772011
Criminal Revision No. 15/11/11
Assigned to Sessions 24/05/11
Arguments heard on 08/07/11
Date of order 14/07/11
IN THE MATTER OF:-
ATUL KUMAR SHARMA
S/O SH. BAHRAM DUTT SHARMA
R/O VILLAGE RAJ PUR
POST OFFICE FARUKH NAGAR
DISTRICT GHAZIABAD
UP .......REVISIONIST/APPLICANT
VS.
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)
....RESPONDENT
ORDER
1. The present revision petition is preferred against the impugned order dated 23.02.2011 passed by Ld. ACMM by virtue of which an application for seeking correction in the order dated 19.01.2010 for releasing his car make Maruti Zen Estelo (white colour) on superdari to the revisionist petitioner was dismissed.
Page 1 of Pages 11 2 CRI. REV. NO.15/11 ATUL KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE
2. Brief facts arising out of this case are that revisionist petitioner had purchased a new car make Maruti Zen Estelo on 28.10.09 from T.R. Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ld. vide bill no. 37562 with Engine no.MA3EMDE1S00237441 and Chassis No.K10BN4007687 respectively.
3. It is further alleged that on 29.12.09 a case u/s 323/341/427/34 IPC was registered at PS Shahdara vide FIR no. 480/09 on the basis of an incident took place on 28.12.2009 at 8:15 p.m at gali no.8, Jyoti Colony near Durga Puri Mandir. In the said incident the aforesaid car was got damaged and was seized by the police official of PS Shahdara.
4. It is further alleged that officials of Ghaziabad authority had issued a slip of registration number of the impugned new vehicle as UP-14-AS-0005. During the course of investigation of that case revisionist petitioner moved an application for seeking custody of the aforesaid Maruti car on superdari and accordingly Ld. MM pleased to pass an order to release the car on superdari. Subsequent to the passing of order dated 19.1.2010 revisionist petitioner came to know that registration no. UP-14-AS-0005 Page 2 of Pages 11 3 CRI. REV. NO.15/11 ATUL KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE had already been allotted to another person by the officials of Ghaziabad Transport Authority and revisionist petitioner was allotted another registration no. I.e UP-14-BD-2005. Pursuant to allotment of new number revisionist petitioner had moved an application before Ld. Trial Court for seeking correction in the impugned order dated 19.1.2010 thereby mentioning the registration number of the impugned vehicle I.e UP-14-BD-2005 instead of UP-14-AS-0005 but said application was dismissed vide order dated 23.2.2011 observing therein that court has no power to recall and review its own order in view of the ratio laid down in Adlat Prasad's case and on feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.2.2011 present revision petition is preferred. Thereafter case was fixed for arguments on the point of maintainability and also on merit of the case.
5. Ld. Addl. PP for state submitted that impugned order is an interlocutory order and revision against the said order is not maintainable. It is further submitted that in the impugned order dated 23.2.2011 Ld. MM has rightly observed that court has no power to recall and review its own order in Page 3 of Pages 11 4 CRI. REV. NO.15/11 ATUL KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE view of ratio laid down in Adlat Prasad's case. In view of the aforesaid submissions requested for dismissal of the petition.
6. On the contrary Ld. counsel for petitioner revisionist submitted that the impugned order is not an interlocutory order and placed his reliance on a decided case cited as Mahadev Vs. State of Rajasthan and another 1997 CRI L.J. 1614 wherein it is observed as under:
"Any order which substantially affects the rights of the parties and/or decide such rights, may be temporarily, cannot be claimed, to be an interlocutory order so as to bar the revisionary powers of this Court or of the Court of Session because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in section 397 Cr.P.C."
It is further observed that "Taking practical aspect of the case and considering the scope and object behind insertion of Section 397 Cr.P.C, it may be said that an order entrusting the supurdgi of the case Page 4 of Pages 11 5 CRI. REV. NO.15/11 ATUL KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE property to either of the claimants, remains in force during the pendency of the proceedings before the Court. That means that it is an order substantially affecting the right to possess the case property during the pendency of the trial of the case. An element of finality, therefore, stands attached to such orders and therefore such orders are revisable under section 397 Cr.P.C."
7. In view of the aforesaid observations given by his lordship it is submitted that revision petition against the impugned order is maintainable.
8. On the contrary Ld. Addl. PP for state failed to rebut the contention of Ld. counsel for revisionist petitioner. I accordingly, held that revision petition against the impugned order is maintainable.
9. During the course of arguments on merit of the case on behalf of Ld. counsel for revisionist petitioner it is pleaded that initially a car make Page 5 of Pages 11 6 CRI. REV. NO.15/11 ATUL KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE Maruti Zen Estelo white colour was purchased by revisionist petitioner on 28.10.09 vide invoice no. 37562 from T.R. Sawhney Private Ltd., East Gokulpur, Main Wazirabad Road and when he was going to his house some altercation had taken place on 28.12.09 at about 8:15 p.m due to that impugned car got damaged and revisionist petitioner also received injuries. On the basis of statement of revisionist petitioner a case u/s 323/341/427/34 IPC was registered at PS Shahdara vide FIR no. 480/09 and in the said case aforesaid car was seized by the IO of this case.
10. During the course of investigation on 18.1.2010 revisionist petitioner had moved an application for releasing the impugned Maruti car on superdari to him only on the basis of Chassis no. and Engine no. mentioned on the invoice, temporary certificate of registration no.DL-1- TEMP-2816 issued by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi North Zone, Transport Department. Thereafter Ghaziabad Transport Authority had issued as slip of allotment of actual registration number of the vehicle as UP-14-AS- 0005 which had been lost during the said occurrence took place on 28.12.09. These facts had already been disclosed in para 3 of the Page 6 of Pages 11 7 CRI. REV. NO.15/11 ATUL KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE application moved before the court of Ld. MM for releasing the vehicle on superdari and only on the basis of engine no./chassis no. mentioned in the invoice vide which impugned vehicle was purchased, Ld. MM had pleased to release the vehicle on superdari vide order dated 19.1.2010.
11. It is further pleaded that subsequent to the said incident revisionist petitioner came to know that registration no. UP-14-AS-0005 had already been allotted in the name of some other person and another registration no. I.e UP-14-BD-2005 was allotted to him and accordingly the vehicle was registered with this number. Pursuant to the aforesaid change in the circumstances the impugned application for seeking modification in the order dated 19.1.2010 was moved. Ld. MM dismissed the said application vide order dated 23.02.2011.
12. It is further pleaded that the Ld. trial Court has not appreciated the fact that revisionist has purchased a new car from T.R. Sawhney Pvt. Ltd. Vide bill no. 37562 bearing engine no. and chassis no. as 00237441 and 007687 respectively. Ld. MM also failed to appreciate the fact that Page 7 of Pages 11 8 CRI. REV. NO.15/11 ATUL KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE the factum of disclosing the registration number of the impugned vehicle as UP-14-AS-0005 was not intentional however, same was inadvertently allotted to him by the concerned authority.
13. It is further pleaded that despite of the fact that concerned IO of the case also disclosed in his report dated 21.7.10 duly filed in the court of Ld. MM that the chassis no. and engine no. of the vehicle bearing registration no. UP-14-AS-0005 were the same as mentioned in the invoice vide which the vehicle was purchased which clearly goes to show that the revisionist petitioner is the true and lawful owner of the impugned vehicle. Ld. MM has erroneously dismissed the application for seeking modification in the impugned order. This fact is also brought on record that the same engine number and chassis no. were also mentioned on the temporary registration certificate issued by the Ghaziabad Transport Authority.
14. In such circumstances I am of the considered view that it is established that revisionist petitioner has purchased a new vehicle I.e Page 8 of Pages 11 9 CRI. REV. NO.15/11 ATUL KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE Maruti car bearing Engine no. 4007687 and Chassis No. 237441 and both certificates including temporary registration certificate and invoice also bears the same engine number and chassis number. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that requisite modification in the order dated 19.1.2010 shall not cause any prejudice on the merit of the case registered vide FIR no. 480/09 u/s 323/341/427/34 IPC registered at PS Shahdara in which the alleged vehicle was seized.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and also taking into consideration the material placed on record in the trial court file I am of the considered view that the modification in the order dated 19.1.2010 has become expedient also in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the order dated 19.01.10 is modified and registration number of the vehicle already released to the revisionist petitioner shall be read as UP-14-BD-2005 instead of UP-14-AS-0005.
16. Neither documentary proof with regard to obtaining the allotment slip of registration no. UP-14-AS-0005 nor any substantive evidence to this effect is brought on record before the court of Ld. MM rather it is yet to be investigated as to why the revisionist got his vehicle registered with Page 9 of Pages 11 10 CRI. REV. NO.15/11 ATUL KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE no.UP-14AS-0005. In such circumstances it is clarified that anything said or any opinion expressed while modifying the order dated 19.1.10 passed by Ld. MM, shall have no affect on the investigation of both the cases I.e one registered u/s 193/209/420/467/471/482 IPC registered at PS Anand Vihar vide FIR no. 362/10 and another case registered at PS Sihani Gate u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC vide FIR no.697/10. IO of both the cases shall be at liberty to investigate the case as per procedure established by law. Revision petition stands disposed off accordingly. Trial court record with copy of order be returned. Revision petition file be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court (B.S. CHUMBAK)
on 14th July 2011. ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-3
NORTH EAST DISTT.:DELHI
Page 10 of Pages 11
11
CRI. REV. NO.15/11 ATUL KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE
Cr. Revision No.15/11
14.07.2011
Present: Sh. S.K. Dass Ld. Addl. PP for state.
Vide separate order, order of Ld. Trial Court dated 19.1.2010 is modified and registration number of the vehicle already released to the revisionist petitioner shall be read as UP-14-BD-2005 instead of UP-14-AS- 0005. However, it is clarified that anything said or any opinion expressed while modifying the order dated 19.1.2010 shall have no affect on the investigation of both the cases I.e one registered u/s 193/209/420/467/471/482 IPC registered at PS Anand Vihar vide FIR no. 362/10 and another case registered at PS Sihani Gate u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC vide FIR no.697/10. IO of both the cases shall be at liberty to investigate the case as per procedure established by law.
Revision petition stands disposed off accordingly. Trial court record with copy of order be returned. Revision petition filed be consigned to the Record Room.
(B.S. CHUMBAK) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-3 NORTH EAST DISTT.:DELHI 14.07.2011 Page 11 of Pages 11