1

Atma Ram vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.

S.B.Cri. Revision Petition No.945/2008

Date of Order :

06.02.2009

HON'BLE MR. MANAK MOHTA, J.

Mr.Rakesh Matoria for the petitioner.

Mr.Vishnu Kachhawaha , Public Prosecutor.

Mr.Narpat Singh for respondent No.2.

The instant revision petition has been filed by the

petitioner against the order dated 28.08.08 passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Revision Petition

No.113/2008 filed by respondent No.2 Vikram Singh, by which

the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition and

reversed the order passed by of learned Judicial Magistrate,

Bikaner with regard to handing over the vehicle on

Supurdginama, which was recovered in connection with FIR

No.75/2008 under sections 380, 381, 420/120-B IPC.

The brief facts of the case are that on the complaint of

respondent No.2 Vikram Singh , a case vide FIR No.75/2008

was registered under sections 420, 380, and 381/120B IPC

2

stating interalia that he purchased vehicle on 27.06.2006

through an agreement to sale by Baljinder Singh after paying

consideration of Rs.2,11,000/-. One Shubhkaran was his

servant, who took away the jeep from Surender Mistri, to

whom jeep was given for repairing. He further alleged that

Shubhkaran, with an intent to grab the jeep, took away the jeep

from Surender Mistri and with the connivance of other

accused, prepared forged documents. The police investigated

the matter and recovered the said jeep . The police, after

thorough investigation, filed challan against Shubbhkaran,

Vikas Sharma and Atma Ram, the present petitioner, under

sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. During

investigation, the record of the said vehicle No.RSC-7378 was

examined.

The complainant Vikram Singh moved an application for

handing over the concerned vehicle, before the learned Judicial

Magistrate, on the basis that by way of said agreement dated

27.06.06 he has purchased the vehicle after paying

consideration and he is the rightful owner. On the other hand,

the present petitioner also moved an application on the

3

strength of being registered owner of the said vehicle and

prayed that vehicle be handed over to him.

The learned Judicial Magistrate, after considering the

arguments of both the applicants, vide order dated 15.05.08,

allowed the application of petitioner in his favour and ordered

to hand over the said vehicle on Supurdginama. Against the

said order, respondent No.2 filed the revision before the

learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, who vide impugned order

dated 28.08.08, reversed the said order and ordered that

concerned vehicle be handed over on Supurdginama to

respondent No.2, complainant. Against that, the present

revision has been filed. Notice of this revision was issued ,

record was called and arguments were heard.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the

petitioner reiterated the grounds agitated before the learned

lower courts that petitioner is the registered owner of the jeep

bearing No.RSC- 7378 and the vehicle has been recovered

during investigation of FIR No.75/2008. It was contended that

false case has been lodged. It was further submitted that the

4

petitioner purchased the said vehicle from one Vikas Sharma,

who had purchased the vehicle from original R/C holder

Shrawan. Therefore, he was entitled to retain that vehicle. It

was urged that the learned revisional court , without proper

appreciation of facts and law, erroneously reversed the order

passed by the Judicial Magistrate and has ordered to hand

over the vehicle on Supurdginama to respondent No.2. During

the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner also

drew my attention towards the material collected during the

course of investigation by the police and submitted that the

police has not properly investigated the matter . It was prayed

tha