1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER (1) S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 982/2007 (Hari Prasad Gattani V/s State of Rajasthan & Anr.) (2) S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.978/2007 (M/s ITC Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) (3) S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 980/2007 (Shivji Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) (4) S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 981/2007 (Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Date of Order : 27/11/2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Dr. S.S.Jodha for petitioner Hari Prasad Gattani. Mr. Manish Shishodia for petitioner M/s. ITC Limited. Mr. Pankaj Sharma for petitioners Shivji Ram & Vinod Kumar. Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, public prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT:- All these criminal misc. petitions involve common question of law and between the same parties, therefore, are being heard together and decided at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2 The petitioners herein have challenged the order dated 01.06.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) whereby the revision petition filed by petitioners M/s ITC Limited, Vinod Kumar and Hariprasad Gattani against the order dated 5.2.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in FIR No.785/06 Police Station- Hanumangarh Junction seeking interim custody of the wheat which has been recovered in the said FIR, have been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders passed by the trial court as well as the order passed by the revisional court. Petitioner M/s ITC Limited through its employee Tarachand lodged an FIR No.785/06 with Police Station- Hanumangarh Junction on 26.12.2006 for the offences under Sections 341, 454 and 380 IPC alleging therein that M/s ITC is a tenant in the godown owned by petitioner Hariprasad Gattani who committed the theft of 3000 bags of wheat each bag weighing 1 Qtl. stored in the said godown in three trucks, number of which have been mentioned in the FIR. Thus, 3000 Qtl. of wheat alleged to have been stolen. In the said FIR, the investigation ensued and the wheat has been recovered from petitioners Shivjiram and Vinod Kumar who are purchaser of the 3 wheat from Hariprasad Gattani. An application seeking interim custody of the wheat was filed before the trial court by the petitioners. The trial court by a well reasoned and detailed order, came to the conclusion that at this stage, prima-facie it cannot be decided that which of the party is the true owner of the wheat and therefore, dismissed the applications and directed the concerned SHO to put the wheat to public auction and whatever amount is received by him in the public auction, same be deposited with the State and it has been made clear that at the time of final decision of the case whoever party ultimately is determined to be entitled to possess the wheat will be given the said amount. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court, petitioners ITC, Hariprasad Gattani and Vinod Kumar went in revision. By a common order dated 01.6.2007, the revisional court dismissed the revision petitions. Hence these petitions. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders impugned as also the FIR and police investigation diary presently available with the public prosecutor. In my view, at the interim stage, it is not possible to come to conclusion that which of the party is the true owner of the wheat. The fact that the godown is owned by petitioner Hariprasad Gattani and was given on lease to M/s ITC Limited by executing a lease deed has not been disputed, however, 4 according to learned counsel for petitioner Hariprasad Gattani, the term of the lease deed has come to an end. At this stage, there is no evidence that M/s ITC Limited handed over the vacant possession of the godown to petitioner Hariprasad Gattani. So far as petitioner Shivji Ram and Vinod Kumar are concerned, they are purchasers of the wheat from petitioner Hariprasad Gattani. Learned counsel Mr. Pankaj Sharma appearing for these two petitioners submits that the wheat purchased by these petitioners is not the one which is subject matter of the theft. Be that as it may, by an interim order, these questions cannot be gone into and decided. In the circumstances, therefore, in my view, the trial court was justified in putting the wheat to public auction so that it can be saved from further damage diminishing its value. On a revision, the revisional court was also of the same view and in my view rightly so. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the public auction may be limited only to the four parties who are petitioners herein. Learned counsel appearing for the ITC Limited submits that public auction may be modified to the extent that the highest bidder of the auction may be permitted to submit a bank guarantee. In my view, when the wheat is put to public auction, it cannot be confined to particular parties. However, the trial court as well as the revisional court made it 5 clear that the petitioners herein also can participate in the public auction and therefore, such a contention cannot be accepted. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the petitions and therefore, the criminal misc. petitions are dismissed. However, it is made clear that in the public auction, the petitioners herein may also participate as directed by the courts below. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp