-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4087 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4087 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4087 OF 2007 Mahesh Narayan Mhamunkar .... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra & ors...... Respondent. Mr. D.H.Mehta i/b M/s. D.M. Legal Associates for the applicant. Ms. Kiran N. Joshi for Respondent no.1. and 2. Ms. P.P.Shinde APP for State. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 23RD JANUARY, 2008 DATED; 23RD JANUARY, 2008 DATED; 23RD JANUARY, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. Heard the application finally by consent of parties. It is the case of the applicant that a Dumper owned by him bearing No. MH-04-CA-6762 having a given chassis and engine number was stolen from Diamond Petrol Pump at which place it was parked by the applicant. Immediately after the theft of the vehicle, FIR was lodged with the police and the investigation was made. In the said investigation, statement of the accused was also recorded. The Dumper in question was seized by the police and hence the present applicant/original complainant moved an application before the trial court, demanding custody -2- of the vehicle. The respondent no.2 from whose possession the Dumper was recovered by the police , also moved an application claiming that the vehicle belongs to him and as the possession was taken from him he should be put in possession thereof. Both the applications came to be heard by the trial court and by a common order, the trial court granted possession of the vehicle to the respondent no.2. 2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court the present applicant filed a revision application before the Sessions Court, Raigad, Alibaug bearing No. 85/07. The rejection of the Revision Application has give rise to the filing of the present application. 3. The ground on which the learned counsel for the applicant has assailed the impugned order is that material documents placed on record by the applicant/complainant have not been considered at all. His further submission is that the Revisional Court has proceeded on an assumption that the present applicant has failed to place on record any document indicating his ownership of the Dumper. The said observation made by the Sessions judge is at the conclusion of para 4 of the order. By raising ground nos. (h) and (i) in the application, the applicant has contended that the learned Sessions judge has -3- failed to consider the documents placed on record which clearly goes to indicate the ownership of the vehicle being that of the applicant. Undisputedly the applicant placed on record the following documents. i) Certificate of registration of the Dumper bearing chassis number, engine number and the name of the applicant as its owner. ii) Goods carriage permit issued by RTO. iii) Insurance policy in relation to the vehicle issued by New India Assurance Company, iv) A receipt of tax payment issued under BMV Tax Act. v) Report made by RTO and the statement of the accused. 4. Relying upon all these documents, the learned counsel has submitted that the Revisional Court has failed to take note of all the above documents and without considering those documents, the case of the applicant claiming possession of the vehicle came to be rejected by incorrectly observing that the applicant has failed to place on record any document -4- indicative of ownership of the vehicle. Thus the submission is that the impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside, as the Sessions Judge has failed to consider the relevant evidence and material on record. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent admits that the documents referred to hereinabove have been placed on record of the court by the applicant. However, he seeks to contend that the said documents cannot be read so as to hold that the applicant is the owner of the vehicle. He has also made a grievance that the report submitted by RTO was on the basis of inspection made by the officer concerned behind the back of the respondent no.2 and thus the said document cannot be of any use to advance the case of the applicant. I do not propose to go into the merit of the matter with a view to find out as to whose claim of the ownership is well founded. I am of the view that it is for the Revisional Court to consider all the documents referred to hereinabove and then decide the revision. The Revisional Court having failed to consider the documents filed by the applicant on record and as the impugned order records an incorrect factual position that the applicant has failed to place on record any document indicative of ownership of the vehicle, I am constrained to quash and set aside the impugned order. -5- 5. In the result, the impugned order dated 14-11-2007 passed by the Sessions judge, Raigad in Criminal Revision No. 85/05 is quashed and set aside. The revision shall stands restored to file and the learned Sessions Judge shall hear and decide the same afresh in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. Application is thus allowed and disposed of with no order as to costs. Needless to mention that all the contentions raised by the applicant so also respondent no.2 are left open to be agitated in the revision before the Sessions Judge. Hearing of the revision is expedited. ....