JUDGMENT - B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.:---By this writ petition invoking the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and its inherent powers saved under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, by which he reversed the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 18th Court, Girgaum, Bombay, directing that two motor cycles and one jeep, which are the subject matters of the present petition, be handed over to the petitioner on his executing a Bond in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on usual terms.

2. The petitioner is the original complainant in C.R. No. 597 of 1985 which was registered with Dadasaheb Bhadkamkar Marg Police Station under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Though the petitioner prayed for setting aside the whole order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, Pertaining to the custody of one Honda motor cycle, one Yamaha motor cycle and one jeep, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Chari stated at the bar that he would not be pressing the claims in respect of the two motor vehicles. I shall, therefore, consider the correctness of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge only in so far as it pertains to the jeep MRF 8319.

3. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the jeep MRF 8319 from respondent No. 1, Dilawar Khan, in 1973 when Dilawar Khan was in need of Rs. 25,000/-. He handed over the Registration Certificate and other duly signed documents to the petitioner after receiving the money. Some time later, Dilawar Khan wanted to get the jeep repaired at Bhopal and desired to have the Registration Certificate to be carried with the vehicle. On this assurance, Dilawar Khan took back the jeep along with the Registration Certificate. Later, after getting the vehicle repaired he colluded with his servant Ajit Dandekar and got the jeep transferred in favour of Ajit Dandekar. Ajit Dandekar in turn claimed that Dilawar Khan had purchased this jeep in 1982 from the Collector of Central Excise in auction and on 11-10-1982 he transferred it in his own (Dilawar Khan's) name and thereafter the said jeep came to be transferred to Ajit Dandekar. According to Ajit Dandekar, the original Taxation and Registration Certificates were mis-placed by Dilawar Khan who applied for and obtained duplicate certificates which were duly issued and thereafter the said vehicle was transferred to the name of Ajit Dandekar by Dilawar Khan on 7-12-1984.

4. The charge-sheet was filed before the learned Magistrate some time in the year 1966. Before the vehicle in question was actually produced or put in the custody of the Court during the trial of the case, the petitioner made an application to the learned Magistrate praying that he may be granted temporary custody of the jeep in question subject to the usual conditions such as not to dispose of or remove any part, etc. and to produce the said property in Court whenever called upon to do so. The petitioner filed before the learned Magistrate the T.C.R., T.T.O. and other forms which were alleged to have been signed by Dilawar Khan in respect of his application. Dilawar Khan did not file any say denying the facts alleged in the application made by the petitioner before the Court. Though Ajit Dandekar filed his say before the Magistrate and claimed that he was entitled to custody of the said jeep as he was the owner thereof, he did not produce any receipt or other documents to show that he had paid any consideration to Dilawar Khan, his employer, nor any material was placed before the learned Magistrate in support of his plea.

5. On the material placed before him and after hearing the parties concerned, the learned Magistrate made an order dated 17th March, 1986 in which he took the view that the circumstances placed before him, particularly the failure of Dilawar Khan to deny the averments made by the petitioner in support of his application and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document