1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

ORDER

Kistoor Chand Versus

State and Anr.

S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 145/2003

against the Order dt. 13.1.2003 passed

by Learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Bhim in FIR Case No.356/02

and FR No. 57/2002.

Date of Order

:

16/2/2005

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. H.R.PANWAR, J.

Mr. Sandeep Mehta,for the petitioner

Mr. Pradeep Shah for the respondent No.2

Mr. Narendra Moolchandani, P.P.

BY THE COURT:-

This criminal revision petition under Section

397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated

13.1.2003 passed by Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Bhim, (for short 'the trial court'

hereinafter) in FIR Case No. 356/02 and Final Report

(Negative) 57/02 P.S. Bhim whereby the trial court

dismissed the application filed by the petitioner

under Section 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. seeking interim

custody of the truck No. RJ-01-G/2744, however,

allowed the application filed by respondent No.2

Pannalal under Sections 451, 457 Cr.P.C. and released

2

the custody of the truck Supardginama and Jamanatnama

in favour of respondent No.2 Pannalal on certain

conditions. Aggrieved of the order impugned, the

petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.

The facts and circumstances giving rise to

the present revision petition are that one Paras, said

to be driver of respondent No.2 lodged a first

information report No. 356/02 with P.S. Bhim, inter

alia, alleging therein that the truck referred above

is owned by respondent No.2 and he was engaged as a

driver for transporting 75 bags of Sugar to Kareda. It

was alleged that sugar belonging to the petitioner was

to be transported in the said truck and the truck was

hired for Rs. 925/-. The complainant parked the truck

outside the hotel of the petitioner for loading sugar

bags and went for meal. When he came back he did not

find the truck there and saw that the truck was

standing behind the hotel without wheels. On this

information, crime report for the offence under

Section 406 and 379 IPC was registered and the

investigation ensued. After investigation, police

filed negative final report. A notice of negative

final report was served on the respondent. A protest

petition was filed by complainant Paras. The

complainant himself was examined as a witness and

produced respondent No.2 and Pushkar Singh as

3

witnesses.

The trial court on perusal of the material

placed before it, came to the conclusion that the

reasons assigned by the police for submitting negative

final report are well-founded and prima-facie no

offence against the petitioner appears to have been

made out. The trial court satisfied with the

conclusion arrived at by the police in filing negative

final report and accordingly negative final report was

accepted and the protest petition came to be dismissed

by order dated 16.8.04. The order dated 16.8.04

dismissing the protest petition and accepting the

negative final report has not been challenged and it

has attained finality.

I have heard learned counsel for the

petitioner and the counsel appearing for respondent

No.2 Pannalal. I have also gone through the order

impugned as well as record of the trial court.

Respondent No.2 Pannalal sold the truck in

question for a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- in favour of

petitioner Kistoor Chand on 18.7.02 by agreement to

sale. The agreement to sale is on record and has not

been disputed by the counsel appearing for the

respondent No.2. In the agreement, it has been

4

mentioned that the said truck was sold by respondent

No.2 Pannalal to petitioner Kistoor Chand on 18.7.02

for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- and out of Rs. 1,80,000/- a

sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- had been received by the vendor

respondent Pannalal and for remaining amount of Rs.

50,000/-,