AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 230 wordsH.C. Mishra, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 05.07.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No. 146 of 2012, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for release of Omni Vehicle in question, which was seized in connection with the case, was reject by the court below.
The impugned order shows that from the documents filed by the petitioner with respect to the vehicle in question, it transpired that the owner of the vehicle is one Swami Charan Ram.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle in question was purchased from the said owner Swami Charan Ram by this petitioner, but it appears that nothing was brought on record in the court below to show that the vehicle was purchased by the petitioner.
I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned court below. If the petitioner possesses any document regarding the transfer of the vehicle in question in his favour, the petitioner may file a fresh application before the Court below and the Court below shall dispose of the application filed by the petitioner, if any, in accordance with law. With this observation, this revision application is disposed of.