Prem Singh vs State of U.P.and Another

P. K. Jain, J.—Heard Sri VK. Birla, learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A.

Notice was sent to Mohd. Ashiq the first informant which was served upon him personally. He has not appeared nor he has tiled any objection or counteraffidavit.

Report was lodged by Mohd. Ashiq Ali stating that the tanker in question was purchased by his brother Mohd. Sadiq from Prem Singh and Ram Prakash one ot whom is the present revisionist. It is also alleged that the sale price was given to the owner and possession was delivered to him. The tanker was burnt during some incident and was taken for repairs. It is further alleged that Ram Prakash and Prem Singh had taken the victim from his house on the pretext that the vehicle shall be transferred in his name. The victim did not return thereafter. Ultimately, he was found to be dead.

The police seized the tanker. An application for its release was made before the learned Magistrate which was rejected by order dated 12597. The present revision has been filed against the said order. Learned Counsel submits that despite notice the opposite party has not filed any objection nor any documents showing ownership of the vehicle in question. Admittedly the tanker belonged to the owners Prem Singh and Ram Prakash. It is contended that the tanker is registered in the names of the said Ram Prakash and Prem Singh. The tanker shall be destroyed in case it remains lying uncared at the police station. Perusal of the learned Magistrate''s order shows that prayer for release of the vehicle was pressed on the ground that the vehicle in question was under dispute between the parties and was the cause of commission of the crime. Although there are allegations in the First Information Report about the tanker having been sold to the brother of Mohd. Ashiq but there is no documentary evidence in this regard. The prayer is only for interim custody of the vehicle. When no objection has been filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 or any other person, the vehicle could be given in interim custody of its owners.

The revision is therefore, allowed and it is directed that the vehicle shall be released in favour of the owners on furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Agra for production of the same as and when directed by the Court. The revision is finally disposed of.

Revision allowed,