ORDER

1. HEARD THE PARTIES.

2. DELAY CONDONED.

3. LEAVE GRANTED.

4. THE APPELLANT NITIN GUPTA FILED AN APPLICATION FOR RELEASE OF THE VEHICLE IN HIS FAVOUR. TUMGE PADU ALSO FILED AN APPLICATION FOR RELEASE OF THE VEHICLE. BOTH THE APPLICATIONS WERE REJECTED BY THE TRIAL COURT. AGAINST THE ORDER OF REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY TUMGE PADU, CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 10 OF 2004 WAS FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27-9-2004, WHEREBY THE VEHICLE IN QUESTION BEARING NO. AR-01-A-6919 (SCORPIO) WAS DIRECTED TO BE RELEASED IN FAVOUR OF TUMGE PADU. IN THE MEANTIME, NITIN GUPTA MOVED THE HIGH COURT VIDE CRL. REVISION NO. 350 OF 2004, AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT REFUSING THE PRAYER FOR RELEASE MADE BY HIM, WHICH WAS DISPOSED OF ON 19-11-2004 IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT BY EARLIER ORDER THE VEHICLE HAD ALREADY BEEN RELEASED IN FAVOUR OF TUMGE PADU. HENCE THESE APPEALS BY NITIN GUPTA IMPUGNING BOTH THE AFORESAID ORDERS.

5. UNDISPUTABLY, NITIN GUPTA WAS A REGISTERED OWNER OF THE VEHICLE. THERE WAS A THEFT OF THE VEHICLE FROM DELHI AND TUMGE PADU CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHASED THE VEHICLE FROM THE PERSON WHO IS STATED TO HAVE COMMITTED THEFT. B