The court upheld the principle of bona fide purchase and rejected the claim based solely on the registration certificate. Additionally, the court cited the specific bar under Section 397(3) CrPC to dismiss the petition as a second revision petition.

G.S. Sarraf , J.-This criminal misc. petition under Section 482, CrPC has been filed against the Judgment dated 22.07.2005 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu whereby the revision petition against the order dated 04.03.2005 of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pilani was dismissed.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner and the Non-Petitioner No. 2 submitted two separate applications to get Jeep No. RJ 18-C-0441 on supurdagi in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pilani. The learned Magistrate by order dated 04.03.2005 rejected the application of the petitioner and allowed the application of the Non-petitioner No. 2 and ordered Jeep No. RJ-18-C-0441 to be given on interim supurdagi to the Non-Petitioner No. 2 provided he executed a supurdaginama in the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-and a surety-bond in the like amount. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the above order which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu by the impugned Judgment dated 22.07.2005. Aggrieved by this the petitioner has filed this petition.

3. Heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the impugned Judgment .

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and it was recovered from his possession, therefore, it should be given to him on supurdagi whereas the learned Advocate for the Non-Petitioner No. 2 contends that the Non-Petitioner No. 2 is the bona fide purchaser and the vehicle has been in his possession from June 2002 to May 2004 and, therefore, he is the person entitled to get the vehicle on supurdagi.

5. I have carefully perused the order dated 04.03.2005 of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pilani and the Judgment dated 22.07.2005 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pilani has found that the registered owner of the vehicle Kailash sold it to one Vijay Kumar in 1998 after receiving full sale amount and thereafter it was sold to Suresh Soni, Kishan Lal, Ranveer Singh and then to the Non-Petitioner No. 2 successively. The learned Magistrate has said that it was not possible for Kailash to sell the vehicle to the petitioner in 2004 because he had already sold it to Vijay Kumar in 1998. According to the learned Magistrate the vehicle was in possession of the Non-Petitioner No. 2 from June 2002 to May, 2004. The learned Magistrate, therefore, rejected the application of the petitioner and gave the vehicle on supurdagi to the Non-Petitioner No. 2. The revision petition filed by the petitioner against the said order of the learned Magistrate was dismissed by the impugned Judgment dated 22.07.2005 of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu.

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case. It appears that the Non-Petitioner No. 2 is bona fide purchaser of the vehicle and in the particular facts and circumstances of the case the two Courts have not committed any illegality or material irregularity by giving the vehicle on interim supurdagi to the Non-Petitioner No. 2 ignoring the claim of the petitioner based on registration certificate. There is no ground for interference. Moreover, the present petition is virtually second revision petition which is not maintainable in view of the specific bar provided under Section 397(3) CrPC. I refer to a Judgment of this Court, 2005 (1) RLW 498, in this regard.

7. In view of the above discussion, there is not merit in this petition. Hence, it is dismissed.