Md. Jilani vs State of Jharkhand and Another

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. This application is directed against the order dated 18.10.2012 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 115 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the order dated 18.7.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Bokaro Thermal P.S. Case No. 103 of 2011 was affirmed whereby and whereunder learned Judicial Magistrate had refused to release the truck in question in favour of the petitioner.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, I do find that the prayer for release of the truck has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is the habitual offender and that the petitioner is never the registered owner of the truck bearing registration No. JH-09M-3444.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner though is not a registered owner of the truck but the possession of the vehicle had been given to the petitioner by the owner of the vehicle under an agreement of sale and thereby the petitioner can be said to be the owner of the truck.

Admittedly, the truck has not been transferred in the name of this petitioner and thereby the petitioner cannot be said to be the registered owner of the vehicle and thereby the Court has rightly rejected the prayer for release of the truck. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality with the order passed by the Court below and hence, this application stands dismissed.