IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 407/2010 (Smt. Leela Devi Vs. State & Ors.) Date : 26.07.2010 HON'BLE MR. C.M. TOTLA, J. Mr. K.L. Thakur for the petitioner. Mrs. Chandralekha, P.P.. = = = = This revision is directed against the order 02.06.2010 passedin Sessions Case No. 61/2007 in the court of Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Chittorgarh whereby petitioner's application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for handing over seized vehicle is rejected. In the order described are all the alleged necessary facts. Learned counsel arguing for release of vehicle submits that (i) petitioner is the registered owner (ii) person in whose favour agreement for sale denies of any such agreement and his signature (iii) no other claimant (iv) vehicle financed by a agency and petitioner is under an obligation to pay instalments (v) lying used property shall cease to be of use leading to wastage of property (vi) inclined to abide by all the conditions which may be reasonably imposed (vii) petitioner not facing any charges. Thrustly submitted that even if person who entered agreement to purchase vehicle facing charge still petitioner being registered owner is entitled for vehicle. In support of contentions, cited are (i) 2008(3) Crl. C.C. 299 (Raj. Smt. Sheela Vs. State (ii) 2007(2) Crl. C.C. 516 (Raj.) Govind Singh Vs. State of Raj. (iii) 2008(4) Crl. C.C. 455 (Raj.) Amarjeet Singh Vs. State of Raj. (iv) 2004(3) Crl. C.C. 588 (Raj.) Nafe Singh Vs. Devendra Kumar – in relation to truck, civil cases between parties and matter pertain to forcible snatching of vehicle (v) 2006(3) Crl. C.C. 639 (Raj.) Sant lal Vs. State of Raj. (vi) 2007(2) Crl. C.C. 176 (Raj.) Nirmal Singh Vs. State of Punjab. Learned Public Prosecutor opposing states that in relation to petitioner registered owner specifically mentioned in charge-sheet of further proceedings for Section 173 A. In the instant case, vehicle contained contraband article 300 kgs poppy straw. Chargesheet is against the person said to have purchase/agreed of purchasing the vehicle entering into a written agreement produced. The vehicle lying un-used for months and years is very relevant but here the facts as submitted are little different. Petitioner has come through power of attorney. It appears that earlier application by the same petitioner was rejected by the trial court on 03.05.08, thereafter, subsequent application in the year 2010 in which impugned order is passed. Specifically mentioned in charge-sheet is that against other persons investigation is pending under Section 173(8) of M.V Act and here registered owner states of selling away and said purchaser declining. Moreover, arguments raised are regarding payment of instalments to financee, if that be so, said financer is not only not impleaded but position regarding payment of instalments too is not clear. For person allegedly sold challan is. In view of above and on stated reasons by petitioner, the order rejecting application under Section 451 Cr.P.C need not be interfered. The revision petition is therefore, rejected. However, the petitioner per procedure by law shall be at liberty to move fresh application before the trial court. (C.M. TOTLA), J. bjsh