IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.5 of 2003 Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. Dehradun Branch, 72 Lytton Road, Dehradun, through its Branch Manager, Sri Ravindra Arora … Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal & another … Respondents Dated: June 17, 2008 Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri Harish Pujari, learned Adll. G.A. for the State HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.11.2002 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal in Criminal Case No.73 of 2002, whereby the learned Magistrate has released the vehicle in question in favour of Respondent No.2-Arvind Bisht. I have heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. G.A. for the State and perused the judgment and order dated 7.11.2002 passed by CJM, Tehri Garhwal. In brief the prosecution case is that Respondent No.2-Arvind Bisht moved an application on 29.6.2002 before the court of CJM, New Tehri, with a prayer to release the Car bearing No.UA.07-0267 in his favour on the ground that the vehicle in question was standing in an open place and for this reason it would be damaged. It was also prayed that during the disposal of the case, the vehicle be given in his Supurdgi. The revisionist also filed his objection before the trial court stating therein that the vehicle was financed by the revisionist-company in favour of respondent No.2. Since, the respondent No.2 had not paid the installments as due upon him, therefore, the revisionist-company was having the right to get the vehicle released in their favour. The learned CJM, Tehri Garhwal found that as the vehicle in question was registered in favour of respondent no.2, hence the learned CJM vide his judgment and order dated 7.11.2002 released the vehicle in favour of respondent No.2 on his executing a personal bond of Rs.1.50 lacs and also on furnishing two sureties. It was also directed that till the disposal of the case, the respondent no.2 shall not change the original form or transfer the possession of the vehicle without prior permission of the court. It was also observed in the judgment that if there is any dispute with regard to payment of installment, the revisionist is free to approach the civil court. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 7.11.2002, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the order passed by learned CJM, Tehri Garhwal is not as per law. Refuting this contention, learned Addl. G.A. for the State submitted that the order was passed by learned Magistrate u/s 451 Cr.P.C. and the same is correct and justified as per law. Section 451 Cr.P.C. is relevant to mention here which reads as under: - 451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases – When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Explanation – For the purposes of this section, “property” includes- (a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody. (b) Any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence. On the basis of the aforesaid quoted Section 451 of Cr.P.C., the learned Addl. G.A. submitted that the property has been released in favour of registered owner who is the respondent No.2 as per law because the registered owner is the only person who is the owner of the vehicle and he is entitled for the release of vehicle in his favour. He also submitted that the impugned order was passed on 7.11.2002 and now the case must have been finally decided. In view of the above-said factual position of the case and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned judgment and order dated 7.11.2002 passed by CJM, Tehri Garhwal. Therefore, the revision preferred by the revisionist is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) Dated 17.06.2008 Rajeev Dang