JUDGMENT - B.B. VAGYANI, J.:---Heard Shri R.B. Raghuwanshi, learned Counsel for petitioner; Shri D.V. Tele, learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 1 and Shri K.D. Bade Patil, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. A vehicle, tempo bearing No. MH-16-B-708 was admittedly owned by the present petitioner. The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in dispute. The petitioner lodged a report at Police Station Pathardi on 29th October, 1998 contending therein that the vehicle was forcibly taken away by the respondent No. 2 from the custody of the driver. On the basis of said report, a Crime No. 192 of 1998 under section 379 of Indian Penal Code has been registered. Accordingly, the Regional Transport Officer was also informed about theft of the vehicle.

3. The said vehicle was found parked in front of the office of Regional Transport Officer. The vehicle was subject matter of theft and, therefore, the Police Officer seized the vehicle on 16-11-1998.

4. The present petitioner, after coming to know about seizure of the vehicle, moved the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pathardi for custody of the vehicle. The respondent No. 2 also moved the learned Judicial Magistrate, First

Click Here to Read the rest of this document