Mohamed Sajid Mohamed vs State

B.V. Pinto

This petition is filed seeking to modify the order dated 22.03.2011 passed by Fast Track Court, Srirangapatna in Crl.R.P.No. 276/2010 in which the learned Fast Track Court has allowed the application Shed by the petitioner for release of vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-11-GA-3572 involved in Crime. No. 279/2010 of K.R. Pete Rural Police Station registered for the offences punishable U/s 406, 407, 420 r/w Sec 34 of IPC.

It is case of the prosecution that, petitioner is the RC owner of the aforesaid vehicle and that the vehicle was brought to Mandya for the purpose of loading pulses and after loading the pulses worth Rs,4,97,150/-, the said vehicle was missing and the property namely pulses were sold at some other place. Thereafter, owner and driver of the vehicle were absconding. The said vehicle was later on seized in Gujrath by the police, on registration of the case. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application for release of the vehicle before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) & J.M.F.C., K.R. Pete. The learned Magistrate after hearing parties rejected the said application for return of the property by on order dated 21.10.2010 on the ground that, petitioner himself has been arraigned as Accused No. 2. The petitioner along with driver Kalyan who to shown as Accused No. 1 had misappropriated pulses worth Rs. 4,97, 150/-. Even before the said crime was committed, he has Sled a complaint before the Gujrath police showing that, documents of the vehicle were lost and he had obtained the duplicate copy of the RC book and aha obtained other documents of the vehicle. By misusing the duplicate documents and by changing the number plate, vehicle was loaded with pulses and the said pulses were sold to some other places.

However, learned Fast Track Court on consideration of the facts that, the vehicle was seized from the possession of the petitioner and that he was accused, prima-facie holding that the petitioner in RC owner of the vehicle had directed to return the vehicle. However, the conditions has been put to the effect that, petitioner shall produce bank guarantee to the worth of the said vehicle with two solvent sureties of the likesum to the satisfaction of the Court below. The petitioner has challenged the said condition in the said order dated 22.03.2011.

I have heard Sri. Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Satish R. Giriji, learned HCGP for the State/ Respondent.

Though it is a cordial principle of law that the property should he returned to the person from whose possession it is seized and that the Registration Certificate is prima-facie proof of ownership of the vehicle, in the peculiar facts of this that the petitioner has misused the documents by suppressing the original documents and also it is found that the engine number and Chassis number were re-embossed by the petitioner and that the petitioner has changed the number plate to carry the pulses worth Ra, 5,00,000/-from Mandya to Rajasthan, the condition imposed by the learned Fast Track Court cannot be said to be either perverse or against the settled principles of law, On the other hand, it will serve the purpose of the interest of justice, if ultimately It is brought to the notice of the Court that, there is some other person, who in entitled for the vehicle, Court should have power to take back the vehicle and give it to the person entitled for vehicle.

On considering the facts of entire materials on record, the order passed by the learned Fast Track Court is just and proper and is in accordance with law. The learned Fast Track Court was right in imposing a condition to furnish bank guarantee in this particular case-.

In view of what has been discussed above, this petition lacks merits and accordingly, the petition is dismissed.