IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1400 of 2010 VIVEK SINGH, SON OF SRI TRIBHUWAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF 57 PROVAS NAGAR, P.O. PROVASH NAGAR, POLICE STATION SO. RAMPUR, DISTRICT HOOGHLY (W.B). . Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE OFFICER INCHARGE PANDARAK, DISTRICT PATNA. ----------- 2 09.12.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner claims to be the registered owner in respect of vehicle (Bolero) bearing registration no. W.B. 15-A- 4528. He is aggrieved by the order dated 09.07.2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barh, Patna, in a case arising out of Pandarak P.S. case No. 112/08, (G.R. 841/08), whereby his prayer for release of vehicle has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce documents of registration relating to the Vehicle in question. Few facts required notice. According to the petitioner the vehicle in question was being driven by his driver namely Viky Prasad. It appears from the record that the said driver disappeared with the aforesaid vehicle which led to institution of Jadavpur P.S. Case No. 110/07, dated 30.10.2007, under Section 407 IPC. It is the stand of the petitioner that after completion of investigation 2 charge sheet has already been filed in that case against the accused namely Viky Prasad (driver of the vehicle). It appears from the record that the aforesaid vehicle (Bolero) bearing registration mark and No. UP 52 FA 3653 was found and seized by the Pandarak police and accordingly an FIR being Pandarak P.S. Case No. 117/08, under Section 414/34 IPC was registered against four accused persons named therein (not the petitioner). It is the submission of the petitioner that subsequent to the commission of theft in relation to the said vehicle an attempt was made to change the registration no. from WB15A-4528 to UP 52FA-3653. However, the chessis no. and the engine no. provided to the vehicle (Bolero) remained the same. A report seems to have been called for by the court below from the concerned police station which was submitted to the Court (Annexure-4). The report eloquently indicate the relevant facts and also incorporate that a claim was made by the petitioner before the Officer- Incharge relating to the said vehicle based on documents of registration which he, however, did not produce before the Officer-Incharge but undertook to produce before the Court. It appears from the impugned order that 3 the claim of the petitioner for release of the vehicle was rejected primarily on the ground that relevant documents relating to the said vehicle was/were not produced. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ready and willing to produce all relevant documents before the Court which will indicate his title/ownership respecting the vehicle. In that view of the matter, this Court proposes to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to satisfy the Court relating to his claim over the vehicle in question. This is deemed expedient in view of the fact that allowing a vehicle to rot is neither in the interest of the nation nor in the interest of the person who claims ownership in respect thereof, particularly when the claimant is not an accused in the case. Petitioner is thus at liberty to approach the said Court once again for release of the vehicle in question. In case such an application is filed and pressed in the court below within five weeks from today along with the copy of the order the same shall be considered on its own merit and disposed of within a reasonable time. It is expected the court below shall complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders thereon within two months from 4 filing of such application. The application stands disposed of. Amrendra/ ( K.K. Mandal, J.)