Crl. Misc. No. M-10406 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-10406 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: May 4, 2010 Balbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. DS Pheruman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. AS Virk, Advocate, for respondent No.2. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. This petition by Balbir Singh-petitioner has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing the order dated 5.11.2007 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sunam (Annexure P/15) and the order dated 2.4.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, (Annexure P/17) and for releasing the vehicle, make 'Innova' bearing registration No. PB-23-E-8275, on superdari in his favour. The petitioner is claiming the ownership of the vehicle in question and has annexed the documents to that effect with the petition. According to him, he purchased this vehicle from the original owner Kartar Singh and, as such, he is the owner and is entitled to the custody thereof. This vehicle was taken into possession in FIR 145 dated Crl. Misc. No. M-10406 of 2008 2 27.8.2007 registered at Police Station Sunam, District Sangrur, under Sections 379, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The petitioner filed the application before the SDJM for release of the vehicle in his favour on the ground that he was the owner thereof. The following order was passed by the SDJM, while dismissing that application:- “Report of police perused. The original owner from whom the applicant allegedly purchased the vehicle has not been verified so far as his name and particulars was found fake during investigation. In the given set of circumstances, the vehicle in question is not liable to be released to applicant, as there is no evidence prima facie to suggest as to how he became the owner thereof. The application under reference is so dismissed.” The petitioner filed revision petition challenging that order, which was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide order dated 2.4.2008. The relevant portion thereof is re-produced below:- “I have heard the contention raised by learned counsel for applicant as well as Addl. PP for the State and after hearing both the sides, I find merit in the contentions raised by learned Public Prosecutor. Report of the police was also perused. It is an admitted fact that the original owner from whom the applicant purchased the vehicle in question has not been verified so far and the name and particulars of the original owner were found fake during the investigation. The contentions of the applicant that he has obtained a loan from the ICICI Bank and the hypothecation is still in the name of ICICI Bank, cannot save him from his duty to disclose the Crl. Misc. No. M-10406 of 2008 3 name of the original owner. Accordingly, the present criminal revision stands declined.” The petitioner has placed on record the sale certificate, sale invoice and the document regarding allotment of temporary number Annexures P/1 to P/3 respectively. In these documents, the vehicle in question, is shown to have been purchased by Kartar Singh son of Shri Ajmer Singh. The petitioner has also placed on record other documents in order to show that he had purchased this vehicle from said Kartar Singh and the registration certificate thereof was issued in his favour. The petitioner should have produced these documents before the SDJM, in case he wanted to establish his ownership. This matter requires re-consideration, in view of the documents relied upon by the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the SDJM is directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner for release of the vehicle in question on superdari afresh, after going through the documents to be produced by the petitioner before him. This petition is disposed of accordingly. May 4, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE