Final Order 1

Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
66TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
C. C. No. : 1628 /N/ 2018.
Avaiz Tazim Ansari … Applicant.
V/s.
Sr. Inspector of Police,
(Amboli Police Station) ...Respondent.
ORDER BELOW APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPLICANT
AVAIZ TAZIM ANSARI FOR RETURN OF THE VEHICLE
Read the application, affidavit of the applicant,
documents filed with the application, say of concerned police
station. Heard Ld. Counsel for applicant, at length. He argued
that, he was arrested by the Amboli Police Station in C.R. No.
447 of 2018 for the offene punishable under sections 406,
420, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and released on bail. The
vehicle was seized at the time of his arrest alongwith the
documents and the same are with the police. The vehicle and
the documents are the subject matter of the case and it
belongs to him. He ready to abide by any conditions imposed
by the court, pray to return the vehicle.
2. The say of concerned police station disclosed that the
vehicle as alleged by the applicant was seized from Rajiv
Kharwanda as he produced the same before the police station
-- 1 of 5 --
2
when he came to know about the registration of offence and
the same was returned to the Rubeda Nisha Hafi Aatiulla by
the order of the court on executing indemnity bond of Rs.6
Lakhs.
3. The Ld. Counsel for applicant argued that the fact of
filing application by the informant is not within his
knowledge. Actually police ought to have say to application
and the application filed by the informant which was made by
her for return of the property together on one date only, but
he expressed doubt upon the act of police officer and
intentionally not filing the say and prolong the present matter
and say filed in the matter made by the informant and the
same was allowed.
4. He argued that the police deceived or mislead the
court. Applicant who is bonafide purchase of the seized
vehicle in that regard filed documents on record and
therefore, he is entitled for the same and therefore pray to
pass appropriate order that is to say prayer to release vehicle
in his favour.
5. If considered the submission made by the Ld. Counsel
of the applicant and say of the concerned police station, it
appears that the said vehicle was handed over to the
informant who lodged the present crime on furnishing
-- 2 of 5 --
3
indemnity bond of `. 6 Lakhs, accordingly the vehicle was
handed over to the informant. Apart from it, with regard to
the act of the police is concerned, even though presume to be
true the argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel cannot be
considered because it was his duty to bring this fact to the
knowledge of the court and placed both the matters on the
same dates for adjudication but it has not done so. Apart from
this though the vehicle in view of the order passed by the
court was handed over to the informant, it has to be seen that
applicant is entitled for the same or not.
6. As per the submission of the Ld. Counsel of
applicant that he purchased the vehicle from the informant
and the informant handed over the blank documents to him.
On perusal of documents, it appears that those documents are
blank even though the argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel
for applicant disclosed that the informant sold her vehicle to
the applicant by signing the blank documents. There was no
reason for the applicant to register the said vehicle with
concern authority.
7. Prima facie I am of view that documents submitted by
the applicant are blank, the vehicle was also not seized from
his possession, it was produced by one person namely Rajiv
Kharwanda, the vehicle do not register in the name of
applicant, therefore he is not entitled for returning of the
-- 3 of 5 --
4
same. Therefore, the application is required to be rejected.
Hence it is rejected.
Mumbai.
Dated : 16/05/2019.
Sd/
(R. M. Nerlikar)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
66th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 4 of 5 --
5
Dictated on : 27/02/2019
Transcribed on : 27/02/2019
Checked on : 02/03/2019
Signed on : 02/03/2019.
SRD.
-- 5 of 5 --