JUDGMENT A.K. Roopanwal, J.
1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 3.8.07 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Jaunpur whereby the applications for release of vehicle No. M.H.-12 CR-9761 were rejected.
2. It appears from the record that the aforesaid vehicle was seized by the police of P.S. Kerakar, District Jaunpur in connection with crime No. 823/06 and 822/06, under Section 8/20, NDPS Act. This vehicle is admittedly registered in the name of Smt. Manorama Bishmlal Kapoor. The revisionist alleged that he had purchased this vehicle from its registered owner through an agreement deed and before this vehicle could be registered in his name it was apprehended by the police. It was also alleged by him that Smt. Manorama Bishmlal Kapoor has also executed a general power of attorney to get the vehicle released by the revisionist.
3. The release application was contested by the State. The court which was seized with the matter refused the application for release mainly on the ground that the general power of attorney alleged to have been executed by the registered owner of the vehicle in favour of the revisionist is not a reliable document.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 3.8.07 the revisionist has come up before this Court.
5. I have heard Mr. Tapan Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Om Narain Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. None appeared for O.P. Nos. 2 & 3,
6. It is not disputed before me by Mr. Tapan Ghosh that the vehicle is still registered in the name of Smt. Manorama Bishmlal Kapoor. This fact was also not denied by learned Counsel for the revisionist that the loan alleged to have been taken for the purchase of the vehicle has not yet been completely paid to the bank concerned. Thus, the interest of the registered owner as well as of the bank is definitely involved in the case and in view of this matter, it is very much desirable that both these parties be heard before passing any order on the release application. When some doubt has been created about the genuineness of the power of attorney alleged to have been executed by Smt. Manorama Bishmlal Kapoor in favour of the revisionist then it becomes more necessary that Smt. Manorama Bishmlal Kapoor be also sent a notice so as to give her an opportunity to present her case before the court.
7. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the trial court and consequently, the order impugned in this revision is liable to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, revision is allowed. Order dated 3.8.07 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the court concerned for afresh decision. The trial court shall issue notices to the concerned bank and the registered owner of the vehicle and after hearing all the parties involved in the case pass an appropriate order according to law. The order be communicated to the court concerned positively within a week.