Order

Learned counsel for the petitioner has preferred the present criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS aggrieved against the order dated 06.03.2026 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh whereby the application filed by the petitioner to sale the vehicle released on supurdginama was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that tractor was stolen from the petitioner’s showroom on the basis of which the petitioner had immediately lodged an FIR and, accordingly, the tractor were recovered. It is further submitted that the said vehicle was handed over to the petitioner on supurdginama.

It is submitted that the petitioner is authorised dealer of swaraj tractors and the vehicle in question are new vehicles meant for sale.

The said application has been rejected by the learned trial Court without properly appreciating the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that vehicle had earlier been released on Supurdaginama subject to certain conditions, which did not expressly permit its sale, and the said vehicle is required for the purpose of trial.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Agarwal Tractors v. State of Rajasthan in CRLMP No. 365/2016 and Jimmi H. Jangalwala Proprietor M/s Vespar v State of Rajasthan in CRLMP No. 1099/2015.

Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to dispute the fact that vehicle is recovered pursuant to the FIR lodged by the petitioner and that the petitioner is an authorised dealer.

This Court has considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not disputed that the petitioner is running the business of sale and purchase of tractor and at the instance of his complaint the vehicles have been recovered.

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Agarwal Tractors v. State of Rajasthan (supra) has clearly considered these facts and recorded as held under:-

“Learned counsel argued that the aforesaid vehicles are standing in the workshop in same position since last 16 months and deteriorating day by day. If the permission for sale of aforesaid vehicles is not granted, then the vehicles would totally damaged. The vehicles cannot be sold in future because new technology would be introduced in the market. There is no dispute regarding the ownership of the aforesaid vehicles, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to grant of permission to sell the aforesaid vehicles. The petitioner is ready to abide by all the conditions imposed by this Court. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied upon judgment of Co- ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Jimmi H. Jangalwala Proprietor M/s. Vespar Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2016 (1) WLC (Raj.) 545.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. The Co- ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Jimmi H. Jangalwala Proprietor M/s.Vespar(supra), in similar circumstances, after relying upon judgment of Allahabad High Court in M/s. Zoom Movers Proprietary Concern Vs. State of U.P., 2011 (1) CrCC 221(Allahabad), allowed the petition filed by the petitioner therein and directed transfer/sale of disputed vehicle after taking latest photographs of the vehicle and preparing of panchnama.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Jimmi H. Jangalwala Proprietor M/s. Vespar(supra), this Court is inclined to allow present petition.

In view of above, present petition is allowed. Order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the trial court is set aside and it is directed that latest photographs of seized vehicles, Sonalika Tractor Engine No. 3102IL43A392514F5, Chasis No.BZRSE394008S3 and Engine No. 3102IL43