Hukam Chand vs State And Anr.
1991 Latest Caselaw 767 Del

JUDGMENT

R.L. Gupta, J.

(1) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against an order dated 20.1.90 passed by the learned Asj, Delhi ordering release of Bus No. Dep 4714 on Super dart to Mani Ram, respondent No. 2 seized by the police in case Fir No. 147/89 registered under Sections 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code in Ps Samay Pur Badli, Delhi at the instance of respondent No. 2 Mani Ram.

(2) In brief the allegations are thaton4.10.82oneHarjeetSinghson of Thakur Singh purchased the impugned bus and started plying it on Dtc route. The bus was financed by State Bank of India, Gandhi Nagar branch. On 19.11.87 Sanjeev Chopra accused in the aforesaid Fir purchased the bus from him on the basis of usual documents. The bus continued to be plied under Dtc operation. Name of Harjeet Singh remained on the account because it was he who was to collect payment from the Dtc and deposit the same on account No. 25782 opened jointly by him along with petitioner in PNB. West Patel Nagar, New Delhi for the benefit of Sanjeev Chopra. Sanjeev Chopra is also alleged to have deposited Rs. 24.500.00 towards loan Installment of the bank payable by Harjeet Singh. Petitioner claims to have purchased the said bus on 15.6 89 from Sanjeev Chopra. His name was also entered in the records of the Transport Authority.

(3) The brief facts which appear from the order of the learned M.M. dated 16.8.89 are that case under Sections 406/420/468/471 read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code was registered against Sanjeev Chopra accused and some others at the instance of respondent No. 2 Mani Ram alleging that accused Sanjeev Chopra was employed by him as a driver of bus No. Dep 7352. After some time the aforesaid accused prompted respondent No. 2 to sign some blank papers on the pretext that he would try to get him a National permit. The accused, thereafter is alleged to have transferred bus Dep 7352 in his own name. Further allegation was that the accused induced respondent No. 2 to part with a huge amount and the accused also purchased some other buses also in his name. Suffice it to say that the complainant made no mention of Bus No. DEP-4714 as having been purchased by the accused with the funds alleged to have been fraudulently taken by the accused from him.

(4) After the seizure of the bus by the police, both the petitioner and respondent No. 2 made applications for release of this bus on Superdari to them. Learned Magistrate, however, came to the conclusion that no trustworthy record/evidence wai produced by cither of them and, therefore, that bus could not be given on Superdari to either of them. Against that order both the parties went in revision. Learned Asj has, however, vide the impugned order released the bus on Superdari to respondent No. 2 on his furnishing a Superdginama for Rs. 1,50,000.00 .

(5) I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 or the State today in spite of the fact that names of the Counsel are correctly shown in the list.

(6) The petitioner has produced on record a photo copy of the seizure memo Issued by Jagdish Ram SI. Crime Branch which indicates that this bus was seized by the 10 from one Hari 0m son of Chandgi Ram along with its keys and registration book etc. The address of the driver is shown as r/o 2724 Gali No. 133, Ranjit Nagar, Patel Nagar, New Delhi which is the same as that of the petitioner. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Hari 0m is his driver, seem s to be correct. It has therefore, to be presumed that the vehicle was seized from the custody of the petitioner's is driver. Photo copy of the registration book of this bus is at pages 41 and 42 as Annexure K. There is an endorsement in this registration book at page 41 regarding the transfer of this vehicle In the name of the petitioner Hukam Chand by purchase from Sanjeev Chopra. The observations of the learned Asj in para 6 of his judgment that on enquiry the petitioner failed to satisfy him regarding the source of payment of Rs. I, 28,000.00 in cash to Sanjeev Chopra is against all logic. Learned Asj was not entitled to go into the question as to how and from where the petitioner obtained this money although in the succeeding lines, it is further indicated that the petitioner also explained how he obtained that money. Thereafter the learned Asj further observed in para 6 of the judgment that Counsel for respondent No. 2 had pointed out to him that Sanjeev Chopra had fraudulently taken Rs. 2 lacs from respondent No. 2 on 5.11.88. This observation was made by him on the basis of a statement by the 10 on the basis of some bank account statement. It may be noted that the petitioner is not an accused in this case. He claimed to be a bonafide purchaser from the accused Sanjeev Chopra. No prima-facie presumption can be drawn against the petitioner to the effect that it was purchased by him on account of any fraud allegedly committed by the accused Sanjeev Chopra respondent No. 2. In fact, all these things will be relevant qua determining the actual title to the bus which is beyond the scope of present proceedings. At this stage the Learned Magistrate in entitled to see only In a primafacie manner as to whom the possession of the property seized by the police should be given. Naturally the possession can be given either to the party from whom it is seized, in case none of the parties is able to produce any proper documents or to a person who can show valid documents in respect of the possession of such property. It was only the petitioner who proved both these things. Therefore, I am of the view that it is necessary to secure the ends of justice that the Super dari of this vehicle is given to the petitioner.

(7) This petition is, therefore, allowed and it is directed that learned trial Court will hand over possession of Bus No. Dep 4714 to the petitioner on furnishing a Superdginama to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate along with the documents of the bus.