JUDGMENT

Ravi R.Tripathi, J.—Leave to amend to correct the name of the appellant.

2. The present appeal is filed by one Jitendrakumar Hemantlal Aswani praying that:-

“7. B) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this Criminal Appeal by quashing and setting aside the Judgment and Order passed by learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Misc.Application No.101 of 2014 dated 5.8.2014 rejecting the application of the present appellant for releasing of Muddamal and further be pleased to handover custody of Muddamal truck bearing Regn.No.GJ-18-U-8233 in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

3. Learned Advocate Mr.Amirkhan Pathan for learned Advocate Mr.Ashish M.Dagli for the appellant invited attention of the Court to the facts of the case which are set out in para-3 of the appeal memo. The same is reproduced for the ready perusal:-

“ It is respectfully submitted that one Laxmansinh Pithasinh Chauhan was owing motor truck No.GJ-18-U-8233 and further the said person obtained hypothecation loan from Tata Motor Finance Co. on the said vehicle for which entry/endorsement was also made in the registration book. It is further submitted that thereafter the said vehicle was given on rent to one Haribhai Bijalbhai Marwadi and thereafter the said vehicle was also given on rent by Haribhai Baljabhai Marwadi to one other person. Thus it is submitted that Laxmansinh Pithabhai Chauhan was the real owner of the said vehicle. It is respectfully submitted that on 30.10.2009 at about 4.30 one offence came to be registered before Joravarnagar police station vide CR No.I-139 of 2009 under Sec.379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code wherein the motor truck No.GJ-8-U-8233 came to be seized by the police authorities.

It is submitted that the motor truck No.GJ-18-U-8233 was hypothecated with Tata Motor Finance Co. Ltd. and real owner i.e. Laxmansinh Chauhan was not able to clear the loan amount of the said vehicle and therefore the said vehicle came to be auctioned by Tata Motor Finance Co. Ltd. wherein the present appellant purchased the said vehicle from the auction bid. Further no objection was also taken from the real owner i.e. Laxmaisinh Chauhan i.e. present appellant before purchasing the said vehicle at a cost of Rs.1,30,000/- from the auction bid.

It is respectfully submitted that thereafter the present appellant preferred an application for releasing of Muddamal vehicle on 17.12.2011 which came to be rejected on the ground that the appellant has not produced any evidence on record to substantiate the fact that he is real owner of the vehicle.

It is submitted that therefore the present appellant carried out the required process under the law and therefore the present appellant obtained one on objection certificate from real owner i.e. Laxmaisinh Chauhan and further also obtained one power of attorney from the said person. It is submitted that since the present appellant has deposited amount of Rs.1,30,000/- by way of purchasing the said vehicle in auction bid hypothecation deed came to be cancelled and thereafter said vehicle came to be transferred in the name of present appellant for which one letter is also issued by Tata Motor Finance Co. Ltd. Copy of the same is annexed herewith and marked Annexure-B to this appeal.

It is respectfully submitted that present appellant has also approached this Hon’ble Court earlier before making the transfer of said vehicle in the name of present appellant by way of filing Criminal Misc. Appln. No. 508 of 2012 wherein this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 22.10.2012 was pleased to reject the application; however it was observed that appellant was at liberty to file a fresh application after getting Muddamal vehicle transferred in the name of present appellant which shall be considered in accordance with law on merits by concerned court below which it annexed herewith and marked Annexure-C.

It is respectfully submitted that since thereafter the present appellant has carried out the required