Mukesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7042 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:28911]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1014/2022

Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh. Girdhari Lal, Aged About 41 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Gram Kudali, Teh. And Dist. Sikar (Raj.). (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

2. Au Small Finance Bank Ltd., Head Office 19-A, Dhuleshwar Garden, Ajmer Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302001, Rajasthan Through Authorized Person Sh. Damodar Das Bhadani.

3. Ashok Kumar Saini S/o Sh. Nanagram Saini, B/c Saini, R/ o Near Lic Office, W.no. 11, Sikar (Raj.).

                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :    Mr. Rajesh Saharan
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. Om Singh Chouhan
                                   Mr. M. Khan, P.P.


          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
                       Order
11/09/2023

1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition,

challenge has been made to the order dated 08.04.2022 passed

by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Cases) Ratangarh, District

Churu in Criminal Misc. Case No.25/2021 relating to Session Case

No.33/2021 pertaining to FIR No. 186/2021 registered at Police

Station Ratangarh, District Churu whereby the prayer made by the

petitioner for releasing the vehicle in question (Fortuner) bearing

registration No. RJ 14 UJ 5319, has been declined.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has purchased the vehicle from its registered owner. He had made

part payment to him and the delivery of the vehicle had been

[2023:RJ-JD:28911] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1014/2022]

handed over to him and he was plying the vehicle which has been

seized by the police in connection of the aforementioned matter.

The relevant material with regard to that transaction has been

made available to the Court. It is his submission that the sale of a

motor vehicle would be covered under the provision of Sale and

Goods Act and as per which, after the payment of price and

delivery of goods, the process of sale is completed. The

registration of the vehicle could not have been transferred because

of the hypothecation endorsement made on the registration

certificate and that was under process and in the meantime, the

vehicle got seized by police. It is further contended that the

registered owner is also agreeable and willing if the delivery of the

vehicle is handed over to the petitioner. An affidavit to this effect

executed by the registered owner in favour of the petitioner has

also been placed on record. The vehicle in question is lying in an

open area of police station and it may deteriorate its condition if

allowed to keep stationed there. He further submits that the

interim custody of the vehicle in question can be given to the

petitioner till conclusion of the trial and for that, there is no legal

bar.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the finance company made

protest to the submission made on behalf of the petitioner by

contending that some installments towards the petitioner are due,

therefore, the delivery may not be given to the petitioner.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the fact of sale in

favour of the petitioner.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for

the parties and having gone through the material available on

[2023:RJ-JD:28911] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1014/2022]

record, I feel persuaded to interfere in the matter. It is not in

dispute that there was an agreement to sale in favour of the

petitioner, only the transfer of the registration was pending. The

registered owner does not object if the vehicle is given to the

petitioner for which he has furnished an affidavit. As far as the

question of claim of finance company is concerned; suffice it

would be to say that a company would be at liberty to take

appropriate action for recovery of the due installments and it may

initiate proceeding and for that; there is no bar. However, at this

stage, no such proceeding has been initiated on its behalf,

therefore, it is not deemed appropriate to allow the parking of the

vehicle in an open area in police station to see its natural decay

and deterioration and the prayer made by the petitioner deserves

to be accepted.

6. Following the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme

Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of

Gujarat, reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 and the order dated

18.11.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal

Appeal No. 2005/2022 [SLP (Crl.) No.7280/2022) titled as

Sainaba Vs. The State of Kerala & Anr., wherein, the vehicle

involved in a crime under NDPS Act was directed to be released on

terms and conditions to be determined by the Special Court, the

revision petition is allowed and this Court deems it just and

appropriate to release the vehicle in question in favour of the

petitioner on interim custody till conclusion of the trial provided he

[2023:RJ-JD:28911] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1014/2022]

furnishes a Supurdaginama of Rs. 20,00,000/- and surety of like

amount to the satisfaction of the Court below.

(FARJAND ALI),J 356-divya/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)