DARSHAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the learned Magistrate made an order on 3rd May, 1937 directing. truck No. D.L.L. 1592 to be given on sapurdari in the sum of Rs. 25,000.00 to Shri Dershan Lal pending the disposal of the proceedings before him. It was stated before the learned Magistrate that Darshan Lal had purchased this truck from one Swarn Kumar Kohli in December, l966. It appears that later Mr. Girdhari Lal approached the Court of the learned Magistrate saying that this truck in fact belonged to him. Now by this time, it so happened, that the learned Magistrate Shri Amba Parkash, who had passed the original order, was succeeded by Shri P. Y. Jaikrishanan. the learned Magistrate on 27th July, 1967 directed Darshan Lal. Sapurdar of the truck in question, to produce the same in Court for the purpose of handing it over to Girdhari Lal. By means of a separate order, the said Magistrate had after going into the merits considered Girdhari Lai to be the legal owner of the truck in question and he actually went to the length of observing that Darshan Lal had failed to produce any documentarv evidence showing his title to the said truck. Girdhari Lal was accordingly appointed a sapurdar of this truck on furnishing security for a sum of Rs. 25,000.00.

(2.) The matter having been taken before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he has recommended to this Court that the order dated 27th July, 1967 be cancelled, being without jurisdiction, because the criminal Court has no power to review its previous order. In the order of recommendation, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has referred to the following two decisions, (i) Lakshmichand Rajmal v, Gopikisan Balmukund and (ii) Muneshwar Bux Singh v. State.

(3.) The counsel for Girdhari Lal and Darshan Lal have addressed elaborate arguments before me pressing their rival claims. The State counsel has, however, kept himself aloof from the controversy because, according to him. the truck has to be handed over to someone as a sapurdar. It is not understood why the State counsel should not have assisted this Court with the point of view of the State on the legal position and also on the desirability of one of the two claiments being a proper sapurdar, It is not as if two private parties are fighting their bettle in which the State is wholly uninterested. This Court would have liked to know the views of the State on the law point at least.