Skip to content


Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 210 of 1985
Judge
Reported in1985WLN(UC)597
AppellantRajendra Singh
RespondentState of Rajasthan
DispositionApplication allowed
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code - section 451--possession of property--no dispute about identity of bus--bus not required for any other purpose--held, it may be given on supardginama to petitioner;there is no dispute about the identity of the bus and it would not be required for any purpose before the court. the learned public prosecutor does not oppose this application. in these circumstances, it appears proper that the bus may be given on supardginama to the petitioner.;application accepted. - .....the r.s.r.t.c. had a permit.2. i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor and have perused the order of the learned magistrate.3. the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on this route, a permit was granted to natwarlal but bus no. rjb 377 had got out of order on 13-7-1985, and therefore, the petitioner replaced it by bus no. rjb 5922 and sent a telegram to the r.t.a. udaipur for permit for this replacement and in these circumstances, he urges that till the question is decided by the learned magistrate when challan is filed before him the bus may be given to him on supardginama as there is no dispute about the identity of the bus and it would not be required for any purpose before the court. the learned public prosecutor.....
Judgment:

Kishore Singh Lodha, J.

1. This application Under Section 482 Cr.PC is directed against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (Roadways), Udaipur dated 15-7-1985 by which he has refused to give bus No. RJB 5922 on Superdginama to the petitioner. This bus was seized on 13-7-1985 by the Dy. S.P. Shri Devisingh on 13-7-1985 as it was found plying without permit and was carrying 60 passengers on Banswara-Partapur route, on a part of which the R.S.R.T.C. had a permit.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the order of the learned Magistrate.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on this route, a permit was granted to Natwarlal but bus No. RJB 377 had got out of order on 13-7-1985, and therefore, the petitioner replaced it by bus No. RJB 5922 and sent a telegram to the R.T.A. Udaipur for permit for this replacement and in these circumstances, he urges that till the question is decided by the learned Magistrate when challan is filed before him the bus may be given to him on Supardginama as there is no dispute about the identity of the bus and it would not be required for any purpose before the court. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose this application. In these circumstances, it appears proper that the bus may be given on Superdginama to the petitioner.

4. I, therefore, accept this application and direct that the bus No. RJB 5922 may be given on Supradginama to the petitioner Shri Rajendra Singh on his executing a Supardginama in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- Rs. one and a half lac) to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Roadways) Udaipur.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //