Kalpana Kushwaha vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard on admission.

The applicant has challenged the order dated 28.11.2013 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S.T. No. 86/2013, whereby a truck bearing registration No. MP 35 H 212 was given into the interim custody to the respondent No. 2.

The facts of the case in short are that a case was registered against the respondent No. 3 that he used the number plate of truck No. MP 35 H 212 in another truck and therefore, the offence punishable u/s 467 of the IPC was registered alongwith other offences. After seizure of the vehicle, the applicant has applied for its interim custody on the ground that she was a registered owner of the truck and therefore, the truck may be delivered to her. On the contrary, the respondent No. 2 took a plea that there was an agreement between the applicant and the respondent No. 2 that the truck could be sold in the sum of Rs. 8,25,000/-approximately. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/-was paid by the applicant and remaining amount would be paid after getting the loan but finance could not be done unless the truck should be registered in the name of purchaser and therefore, the respondent No. 2 gave the NOC and registration was made in the name of the applicant, whereas she was not the owner of the truck.

After considering the pleadings made by learned counsel for the parties, the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa gave the vehicle into the interim custody to the respondent No. 2.

After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be apparent that the vehicle was seized from the respondent No. 2 and it was not in the possession of the applicant at the time of seizure. Learned counsel for the applicant could not show any receipt that the applicant paid a sum of Rs. 8,25,000/-to the respondent No. 2. The applicant is dependent upon the registration that the truck was registered in her name.

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed his reliance upon the order passed by the Single Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of Jacob and Another Vs. Jayabharat Credit and Investment Co. Ltd., and Others, . However, in that order, no specific law has been laid that the vehicle should be given to the registered owner. In the present case, the truck was found in the possession of the respondent No. 2 and if, its number plate was used by the respondent No. 3 to another vehicle then, the defence taken by learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 appears to be acceptable. Prima facie, the entire sale amount of the truck was not paid to the respondent No. 2 and name of the registered owner was changed to facilitate the applicant to get the loan. Under such circumstances, when the truck was recovered from the respondent No. 2 prima facie, it should be given to the respondent No. 2 in the interim custody. If there is a civil dispute between the applicant and the respondent No. 2 then, it is for them to resolve separately. Under such circumstances, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa has not committed any error of law in giving the interim custody to the respondent No. 2.

Consequently, there is no basis by which the present revision filed by the applicant namely Kalpana Kushwaha may be accepted and hence, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage.