Case Law Details
Himatbhai Laxmanbhai Ognaja Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
Conclusion: Since assessee was not having any evidence even to prove the said fact that he had made the payment towards installment of loan for the muddamal vehicle, the Magistrate had to verify the aspect of ownership of the muddamal vehicle after conducting inquiry and should handover the custody of the muddamal vehicle at the end of the trial if assessee was able to prove his better title and possession over respondent without being influenced by any of the observations made by Revisional Court in Criminal Revision Application.
Held: Assessee had preferred this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Sections 451 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 29.05.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Revision Application No.61 of 2023 as also the common order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vinchhiya in Muddamal Application 22 and Muddamal Application No.6 of 2023 and had requested to direct the Respondents to hand over the custody of muddamal vehicle being goods carrier vehicle viz. Mahindra & Mahindra Bolero Pick-up bearing registration No.GJ-33-T-0533 to the present assessee. Assessee, by way of sale agreement, had purchased muddamal vehicle being goods carrier vehicle viz. Mahindra & Mahindra Bolero Pickup bearing registration No.GJ-33-T-0533 from respondent No.3. He had lodged an FIR being CR with Vinchhiya Police Station, Rajkot (Rural) against one Pravinbhai for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), wherein it was alleged that the accused had taken the muddamal vehicle for trial under the pretext that he intended to purchase the muddamal vehicle from the present assessee and thereafter the accused fled away with the muddamal vehicle and hence, FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC came to be filed. The muddamal vehicle was hypothecated with AU Small Finance Bank Limited and assessee had paid Rs.6 lakh towards loan by way of installments and thereafter assessee had received the possession of muddamal vehicle. Thus, on the basis of such oral agreement and alleged notarized contract/agreement, assessee had received the possession of muddamal vehicle and since then assessee became the owner of the muddamal vehicle and was having the possession of the same. It was held that assessee was not a registered owner of the vehicle and had failed to prove his ownership as regards to he had purchased the vehicle and paid loan installments also to Finance Company and except bare words, assessee was not having any evidence even to prove the said fact that he had made the payment towards installment of loan for the muddamal vehicle. Hence, this Court was not inclined to grant any relief in favor of assessee and did not find any reason to interfere in the findings recording by the Sessions Judge. Hence, detail inquiry qua said fact was required to be conducted in this regard. However, it was clarified that the Magistrate had to verify the aspect of ownership of the muddamal vehicle after conducting inquiry and should handover the custody of the muddamal vehicle at the end of the trial if assessee was able to prove his better title and possession over respondent No.3. Trial Court was directed to decide the question of ownership of muddamal vehicle without being influenced by any of the observations made by Revisional Court in Criminal Revision Application No.61/2023 while deciding the ownership and possession.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
