Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.24 seconds)
Documents citing Makbool Khan vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 28 January, 1983

Devi Chand Jain vs The State Of Rajasthan on 19 December, 1990

6. It is not disputed that a complaint was filed by Devi Chand in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, in which the tractor was seized and this complaint was sent for investigation to the police and the police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan and the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance against Laxman Dan and Chhel Singh and the matter is still pending. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that as Laxman Dan is an accused in a case with respect to this very tractor, therefore, the delivery and custody of the tractor, cultivator and displough cannot be given to Laxman Dan and he has placed reliance on Makbool Khan v. The State of Rajasthan 1983 RCC 98, Banney Singh v. The State of Rajasthan 1985 RCC 297, and Kailash Chandra v. Paras Mal 1985 RLW 206).Merely because a complaint has been filed and on the basis of which a cognizance has been taken by the Court, it will not disentitle any accused for consideration of his case for the custody of the vehicle. If that will be allowed then a great hardship will be caused to the real owner and the person who is in possession of the motor vehicle because in that case any person may lodge a report or file a complaint against the real owner and if by chance he succeeds in getting the cognizance taken and the vehicle seized and as soon as the cognizance is taken, the right for consideration of the custody of the vehicle to the actual owner goes away as the case is pending against him. I am therefore, of the opinion that at the time of consideration regarding the custody of the vehicle, the claim of the petitioner for the custody of the vehicle cannot be altogether ignored on the point that a criminal case is pending against him in which the cognizance has been taken. That may be a ground for not giving the custody of the vehicle to him but it cannot altogether disentitle him for the custody of the vehicle. Keeping this in view that a criminal case is pending against Laxam Dan, and the cognizance has been taken against him by the Court, I will consider the case of the respondent Laxman Dan as well as that of Devi Chand as to who is the person best entitled for the delivery of the tractor.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hasti Mal vs Bhoja And State Of Rajasthan on 2 September, 1987

Attention was also drawn to the various documents placed on record by the petitioner and the documents submitted along with the charge-sheet which has been submitted in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 29th November, 1986 i.e. 24 days after the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had passed the order. Several authorities were cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on point that the question of title has not to be gone into for handing over the possession in Supurdginama and that possession should not be given to the accused as the same would amount to putting premium on the crime committed by him. Citations were also given on the question that endorsement of the transfer of the vehicle in the records of the registering authority is not a condition precedent to the transfer and the deal is not rendered illegal. The reliance was placed on Banne Singh v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors (1985 Cr.LR (Raj) 504; P.K. Panda v. Smt Premlata Choudhary and Ors ; M/s Automobile Transport Pvt. Ltd. v. Dewalal 1977 RLW 115; Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay AIR 1955 SC 71; Maqbool Khan v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors 1983 Cr.LR (Raj) 114; Kailash Chandra v. Parasmal 1981 RLW 260; M.J. Velu Mudaliar and Anr v. Sri Venkateswara Finance Corp. and Ors ; and The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Vimal Rai and Ors .
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Banne Singh And Anr. vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 10 April, 1985

Abdul Rehman should be deemed to be the persen entitled to the possession of the bus in question. In doing so, in my opinion, he has clearly fallen into an error because the question before him at present was not about the title of the bus but was only with regard to the " possession and when admittedly the possession of the bus was with Banne Singh at the time he is alleged to ,have been deprived of the possession by the accused Abdul Rehman, the mere fact that the registration had not been transferred in his name was not enough to disentitle him to the possession of the bus. On the other hand, it clearly appears that the learned Magistrate has already taken cognizance of the offence against Abdul Rehman on the police report and by giving the bus in these circumstances to Abdul Rehman he has clearly put a premium on the alleged crime. Without adding to the length of this order, I may only refer to two decisions of this Court which are almost on all fours with the present case, namely, Kailash Chandra v. Parasmal 1981 RLW 260 and Makbool Khan v. The State of Rajasthan and Anr. 1983 Cr.LR (Raj.) 114.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Chandi Dan vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 20 October, 1989

In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on Maqbool Khan v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1983 RCC 98. In this case, the Ectual possession of the truck at the time it was seized by the police was of the non-petitioner, and he had also managed to get the registration transferred in his name ft was held that the actual possession of the truck at the time it was seized by the police could be a relevant factor but not conclusive to determine the question which party was entitled to possession thereof." It was observed that the non-petitioner against whom investigation of a criminal case is pending and was suspected of having committed crime could not be given ths custody of the vehicle.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mohammed Saleem vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 September, 1992

In Makbool Khan v. The State of Rajasthan 1983 R.Cr.C. 98, the petitioner lodged a FIR alleging that he purchased a truck from Bhanwarlal on 24.1.81 and it was registered in his name. Thereafter the said truck was attached to Munshi Transport Company, Deedwana, Branch Desal and the petitioner used to drive it but on account of his son's marriage on April, 10, 1981 he entrusted this truck to Ayyub Ali Proprietor of Munshi Transport Company in presence of Ramlal Barber. After marriage was celebrated, the petitioner went to Jaipur on 18.4.81 and came to know that Ayyub Ali had taken away receipt for payment of tax of the truck. The petitioner came to Barmer and further came to know that Ayyub Ali managed to get the vehicle transferred in his name by preparing a forged document. This Court has taken the view that the actual possession of the truck at the time it was seized by the police could be relevant factor but not conclusive to determine the question, which party was entitled to possession thereof. Similarly the registration was not sufficient to treat him the owner and entitle for lawful possession thereof.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1