# Km. Gunjan (minor) v. Ram Ratan

- **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 405
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-12
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 9641 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/km-gunjan-minor-v-ram-ratan-51020
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 207 -
Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - Rule
56(2) - Form 31 - Custody of seized
vehicle - Minor petitioner sole legal heir
of registered owner - Notary sale deed
relied
on
by
respondent
held
untrustworthy - Succession certificate
and RTO authorization in favour of minor
petitioner valid - Held, custody of vehicle
to be restored to minor petitioner -
litigation should not be prolonged to
detriment of minor's rights- Revisional
order set aside-Petition allowed.

HELD:
Considering
the
aforesaid
facts
and
circumstances of the case and the submissions
advanced by the parties, the order dated
25.8.2023 passed by learned Additional Session
Judge, Court No. 29, Agra passed in Criminal
Revision No. 179 of 2023 (Ram Ratan Vs St. of
U.P. & anr.) is hereby set-aside with the direction
to the Court concerned to handover the custody
of the vehicle immediately to the petitioner
Gunjan (minor) through her legal guardian
Kishan Pal Singh and settle the dispute at the
earliest.

Petition allowed. (E-14)

## Text

11 All. Km. Gunjan (minor) Vs. Ram Ratan
405

32. The above discussion leaves no
scope for interference with the orders
impugned in this writ petition. I have no
doubt in holding that this petition lacks
substance and is devoid of merits.

33. Dismissed.

34. Interim order, if any, shall stand
vacated.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 405
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 9641 of 2023
(Criminal)

Km. Gunjan (minor) ...Petitioner
Versus
Ram Ratan ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anup Kumar Singh, Sri Rajesh Kumar
Gautam

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Ajay Dubey, Sri Shambhu Mani Tripathi,
Sri Apul Mishra

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 207 -
Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - Rule
56(2) - Form 31 - Custody of seized
vehicle - Minor petitioner sole legal heir
of registered owner - Notary sale deed
relied
on
by
respondent
held
untrustworthy - Succession certificate
and RTO authorization in favour of minor
petitioner valid - Held, custody of vehicle
to be restored to minor petitioner -
litigation should not be prolonged to
detriment of minor's rights- Revisional
order set aside-Petition allowed.

HELD:
Considering
the
aforesaid
facts
and
circumstances of the case and the submissions
advanced by the parties, the order dated
25.8.2023 passed by learned Additional Session
Judge, Court No. 29, Agra passed in Criminal
Revision No. 179 of 2023 (Ram Ratan Vs St. of
U.P. & anr.) is hereby set-aside with the direction
to the Court concerned to handover the custody
of the vehicle immediately to the petitioner
Gunjan (minor) through her legal guardian
Kishan Pal Singh and settle the dispute at the
earliest.

Petition allowed. (E-14)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha
Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Gautam,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Shambhu Mani Tripathi, Advocate holding
brief of Sri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel
for the respondent no.3, Sri Nand Lal,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the record.

2. The present writ petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India has
been filed with a prayer to set-aside the
order dated 25.08.2023 passed by learned
Additional Session Judge, Court No. 29,
Agra passed in Criminal Revision No. 179
of 2023 (Ram Ratan vs. State of U.P. and
another) and also direct the learned Trial
Court to release the aforesaid vehicle in
favour of the petitioner.

3. The instant writ petition has been
preferred by the petitioner Km. Gunjan
(minor) aged about 8 years through her
legal, i.e., her maternal grandfather Sri
Kishan Pal Singh.

4. The matter in brief is that the father
of the petitioner namely Late Manvendra
Singh purchased a Bolero Vehicle on
8.4.2019 which was registered through
406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Certificate of Registration dated 1.8.2019
before the Transport Regional Officer,
Agra as U.P.80 FC 3477. Unfortunately,
the father of the minor petitioner died on
03.05.2019. Subsequently, her mother also
died on 17.11.2019. In the meantime, the
respondent no. 3 Ram Ratan who served as
a driver of her father wanted to grab the
vehicle and got a forged Notary Sale Deed
dated 25.03.2019 prepared in his favour
and moved an application dated 23.9.2019
for transfer of ownership. After having
knowledge about the same, the maternal
grandfather of the petitioner endeavoured
to get back the vehicle from respondent no.
3 Ram Ratan but was denied.

5. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the maternal
grandfather (Kishan Pal Singh) moved an
application before the Regional Transport
Officer, Agra to transfer the aforesaid
vehicle in favour of the petitioner, the sole
legal heir of her deceased parents. A report
dated 27.12.2021 was sought from Lekhpal
wherein the petitioner Km. Gunjan (minor)
was shown to be the sole legal heir of the
deceased Manvendra who was the owner of
the vehicle. Accordingly, the Regional
Transport Officer, Agra, gave temporary
authorization on 5.7.2023 of the said
vehicle
to
the
petitioner
under
the
guardianship of her maternal grandfather
for a certain period.

6. In the meanwhile, on 31.05.2022,
the Barhan Police seized the said vehicle
U.P. 80 FC 3477 under Section 207 of
Motor Vehicles Act and was challaned vide
Challan Order No. 91012220531184219 in
the name of Ram Ratan as at the time of
seizure, the vehicle was in the custody of
respondent
no.
3
Ram
Ratan.
An
application was moved by the petitioner
through her guardian Kishan Pal Singh for
the release of the aforesaid vehicle as she
was the registered owner. The said release
application was however rejected on
17.6.2022.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, a
Revision No. 397 of 2022 was filed before
the District Judge, Agra wherein Ram Ratan
was directed to be impleaded as a necessary
party and the said revision was partly allowed
directing the Court concerned to dispose of
the matter after giving opportunity of hearing
to both the parties. Both the parties appeared
before the Trial Court and on the basis of
records available the order dated 9.2.2023
was passed.

8. During the pendency of the criminal
revision, the R.T.O. Agra granted temporary
authorization of the vehicle to the minor
petitioner Gunjan. Ram Ratan raised an
objection that the vehicle has been transferred
on the basis of incorrect facts and real facts
were suppressed before the Transport Officer,
Agra. Accordingly, the said transfer of the
vehicle in favour of the petitioner was black
listed.

9. The main submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated
25.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional
Session Judge, Court No. 29, Agra is illegal
and is not sustainable as the petitioner being
the sole legal heir of the deceased Manvendra
Singh, was the rightful owner of the vehicle.

10. It has also been asserted that the
R.T.O., Agra had already granted temporarily
authorization of registration certificate in
favour of the petitioner Km. Gunjan (minor),
Care Taker Kishan Pal Singh on 5.7.2023 for a
certain period.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 2 argued that though the
11 All. Km. Gunjan (minor) Vs. Ram Ratan
407
father of the petitioner Late Manvendra
Singh was the registered owner of the
vehicle but later it was purchased by Ram
Ratan
through
a
Sale
Deed
dated
25.03.2019. It was asserted that the
deceased Manvendra during his lifetime
had sold the vehicle to Ram Ratan on
25.03.2019 as the debt was due to be paid
to the financer, but, the title of the vehicle
could not be transferred in his favour. A
Notary Sale Deed dated 25.03.2019 was
executed between Manvendra Singh and
Ram Ratan and Rs. 7 lakh was stated to
have been paid to Manvendra Singh and the
balance amount was to be paid by Ram
Ratan. After the death of Manvendra Singh
his in-laws mounted pressure upon Ram
Ratan to return the vehicle and accordingly,
Rs. 1,80,000/- was paid to Kishan Pal, the
maternal grandfather of the petitioner.

12. Affidavit of the brother of the
deceased Ravendra Singh and sister of the
deceased Smt. Kaushalya have also been
produced indicating that the said vehicle
was sold out to Ram Ratan on 25.03.2019.

13. Further it was stated that the said
vehicle was purchased by Sale Deed dated
25.03.2019 and had submitted the Transfer
Form No. 30(2). R.T.O., Agra and had also
paid the loan installments. He stated that he
regularly paid the Toll Plaza through his
accounts. Even by order dated 22.9.2023
vide Challan No. UP 91012220531184219
under Section 207 of Motor Vehicles Act,
the vehicle was released in his favour.

14. The Revisional Court had thus
observed that as the transfer application was
pending
decision
before
the
Regional
Transport Officer, Agra and as the ownership
and title of the vehicle was not confirmed and
no document claiming the ownership of the
vehicle was produced, therefore, the custody
of the vehicle was rightly given to Ram
Ratan. Thus, the order dated 09.02.2023 was
quashed by the Revisional Court directing the
Trial Court to give the custody of the vehicle
to Ram Ratan.

15. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and from the perusal of the record, it
transpires that the petitioner Km. Gunjan
(minor) aged about 8 years is the sole legal
heir of the deceased Manvendra Singh who
was the registered owner of the said vehicle.
After the death of her father Manvendra on
03.05.2019 and mother Smt Sunita Kumari
on 17.11.2019, the petitioner Km. Gunjan
(minor) was their sole legal heir. The District
Magistrate, Agra had issued a Succession
Certificate No. 4740/Judicial Assistant -3
dated 26.02.2022 declaring the petitioner
Km. Gunjan (minor) having date of birth
18.1.2015 as the sole legal heir.

16. On 27.05.2023 an application was
moved by the petitioner through Care Taker
Kishan Pal Singh for transfer of the vehicle
under Rule 56 (2) of the Central Motor
Vehicles Act, 1989, Financer through Form31 had endorsed in favour of guardian. The
then Assistant Regional Transport Officer,
Agra vide order dated 30.05.2023 has ordered
to transfer the vehicle in favour of the
petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner being
legal heir of her deceased father, is the
rightful owner of the said vehicle.

17. The alleged Sale Deed dated
25.03.2019 is a forged Notary Affidavit
and is not a registered sale deed and was
executed much prior to the date when the
father of the petitioner purchased his
Bolero vehicle,i.e. on 8.4.2019.

18. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances
of
the
case
and
the
submissions advanced by the parties, the
408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order dated 25.8.2023 passed by learned
Additional Session Judge, Court No. 29,
Agra passed in Criminal Revision No. 179
of 2023 (Ram Ratan vs. State of U.P. and
another) is hereby set-aside with the
direction to the Court concerned to
handover the custody of the vehicle
immediately to the petitioner Gunjan
(minor) through her legal guardian Kishan
Pal Singh and settle the dispute at the
earliest.

19. It is also made clear that the matter
has not being remitted back to the Court
concerned as it shall unnecessarily prolong
the litigation and the minor petitioner Km.
Gunjan shall be unnecessarily harassed.

20.
With
the
aforesaid
directions/observations, the present Writ
Petition is disposed of.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 408
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 25510 of 2024

M/s Kewal Dairy ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Bipin Kumar, Mohd, Naushad Siddiqui

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal law- Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 -Section 482- Food Safety and
Standards Act, 2006 - Sections 51, 59(i),
77 & 89 - Limitation for prosecution -
Cognizance beyond one year - Effect of
approval
under
Section
77
-
Commissioner of Food Safety may extend
limitation up to three years by recording
reasons - Overriding effect of the Act
under Section 89 - Section 468 CrPC not
applicable - Cognizance rightly taken -
application dismissed. (Paras 9 to 12, 15,
and 16)

HELD:
Ratio of St. of Rajasthan Vs Sanjay Kumar
(supra) is also applicable in the Act, 2006
because, at the time of collection of a sample of
food, no offence can be said to be committed as
there is no prohibition to sell food which is not
prohibited. It is only when Food Analyst Report
received about unfit/unsafe food, offence can be
said to be committed. In case of sell of unsafe
or sub-standard milk, the date of commission of
offence would be the date when the report of
Food Analyst is received about its quality. (Para
9)

Thus applying the above Principle of Law in the
present case, date of commission of offence
would be 10.12.2017. Thereafter application for
seeking approval was submitted by the Food
Safety Officer on 14.05.2018 and approval
under Section 77 of the Act, 2006 was granted
on 20.06.2019. Therefore period between
14.05.2018 to 20.06.2019 would be excluded
because of Section 470(3) Cr.P.C., as Section
470(3) Cr.P.C. provides exclusion of time taken
by Sanctioning Authority in computation of
limitation.
Therefore
complaint
filed
on
04.07.2019 was well within one year. (Para 10)

As per the law laid down in Sarah Mathew Vs
Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases & ors.;
(2014) 2 SCC 62, the date of cognizance would
be the date when the complaint is filed. (Para
11)

So far as the contention of counsel for the
applicant that the offence is punishable for one
year and because of Section 468 Cr.P.C., the
cognizance cannot be taken after one year is
concerned, is incorrect because as per Section
77 of the Act, 2006 prosecution even after one
year can be approved by the Commissioner,
Food Safety and the same has already been
approved by the Commissioner by order dated