HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Misc. Petition No.458 of 2008 1. Suresh Kumar, S/o Late Gariya Singh, aged about 43 years, Owner of Truck No.H.R.—56-8992 and H.R.-56-J-3292, R/o Village Bibipur, Distt. Jind (Haryana) Through Power of Attorney Holder Shri Ramesh Kumar, S/o Late Gariya Singh, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Bibipur, Distt. Jind (Haryana) 1 PETITIONERS: . 2. Jaswant Singh, S/o Ramsingh, R/o ' Urdna-Naka-Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) (Earlier Power of Attorney Holder of Suresh Kumar) ’ Versus The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Sankara, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) {Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} RESPONDENT: Present: Mr. A.K. Prasad, counsel for the petitioners. Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (3-12-2008) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 27-8—2008 passed by the 15‘ Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Criminal Revision No.22/2008 affirming the order dated 3—6-2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mahasamund whereby the Court belowvhas rejected the application for interim custody of the property under Section 451/457 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that the petitioners, who are owners of the two trucks namely HR-56/J— 3292 & HR—56/J-8992, have changed the number plates of each others and transported the same. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are owners of both the vehicles in question and the property isllying in the Police Station unattended even without proper care, therefore, the property in question be handed over to the petitioners in Supurdnama. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matters of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat1, Mohammad Shekhawat v. State of Chhattisgarhz, Dev Kumar Rusiya v. Vijay Kumar & others3 and Gopal Vishvas v. State of c.G.4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State/ respondent has supported the order impugned and submitted that the petitioners have forged the documents and tampered the numbers plates of both the vehicles and changed the registration numbers, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for getting the vehicles on Supurdnama. According to the order impugned and the documents filed on behalf of the petitioners, the petitioners are owners of the vehicles in question namely HR- 56/J-3292 & HR-56/J-8992. But according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioners were using the vehicles after changing the registration numbers for which they are not authorized and by changing the registration numbers of the vehicles, they have tampered with the registration numbers and forged the articles, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for the custody of the forged i ‘ & tampered articles. 5. Consequently, the petition is dismissed in limine. However, the Court below is directed to decide the matter as early as possible within three months from the date of filing of the copy of this order on behalf of the petitioners. 6. Certified copy as per rules. / martfi if sal- / ' L T.P.Sharma Soma ‘AIR 2003 sc.638 2 2001 (1) c.G.L.J. 234 3 2005 (2) c.G.L.J. 33o 4 2005 (1) C.G.L.J. 112 . .