(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order dated 30-10-1977, passed by Shri V. S. Pyasi, Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal appeals No. 210 of 1977 and 212 of 1977 against the order passed by shri S. A. Naqvi, Judicial Magistrate, First Class Raghogarh, on 29-7-1977 in criminal Original Case No. 49 of 1977.
(2.) THE petitioner Bhagwanlal purchased a truck (No. MPN 5858) for rs. 1,01,171 on 10-10-1975, and paid Rs. 26,171 to the Company on the date of the purchase and the balance of Rs. 75,000 was to be paid subsequently * and, therefore, the petitioners entered into a Hire-purchase agreement with tata Company through M/s. Singhi Brothers* Indore. The truck was registered in the name of the petitioner and even today, it stands in the name of the petitioner. On 9-12-1976, the petitioners executed a General power of Attorney in favour of non-petitioner No. 1 Govind Prasad. Through this power of attorney, the petitioners authorised non-petitioner No. 1 to act and exercise all powers in relation to the said truck on his behalf. On 2-7-1977, non-petitioner No. 1, lodged a report at police station, Jamner about theft of the said truck. On this report, the police Jamner registered a case under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. On 15-7-1977, police Ashoknagar seized the truck from the possession of the petitioner and handed it over to police, Jamner. Police, Jamner produced the truck in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First class Raghogarh where the criminal case about the theft of the truck was pending. The petitioner filed an application in the Court for giving the truck on 'supurdagi' to him. The non-petitioner No. 1 also filed a similar application. The learned trial Court rejected both the applications. Both the parties went in appeal before the Sessions Judge, Guna. While deciding appeals of both the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, passed an order that the truck be given to Govind Prasad non-petitioner No. 1 and his appeal was accepted while that of the petitioners was rejected. Against that the present revision is filed.
(3.) THE only point which is urged before me is that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Guna is not according to law and he has not seen as to who is entitled for the possession of the said truck and under his conception of law, passed an order that the truck be handed over to Govind prasad. The learned counsel, appealing on behalf of Govind Prasad supported the order. From the documents which are on the record, it is clear that the truck was purchased by the petitioner and there is an agreement between him and Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Bombay. It is dated 10-10-1973. The number of this agreement is 10978. Then, there is a mention in the agreement itself how the amount is to be paid. The agreement also specifically says that unless and until the full amount is paid the ownership will remain with the Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. The value of the said truck is Rs. 1,39,521 out of which initial amount is to be paid by instalments in 35 months. Then, there is a certificate of Insurance which is also in the name of the petitioner Bhagwanlal Amarchand Sahu. The policy No. is 448666053 with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The registration of the truck is also in the name of Bhagwanlal son of Amarchand and the power of attorney given by Bhagwanlal shows that non-petitioner No. 1 was only an agent working on his behalf. The non-applicant has produced an agreement to show that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the non-petitioner for the purchase of the said truck. But suffice it to say here that according to the agreement the whole amount has not yet been paid. Therefore, even though the agreement is taken into consideration, it cannot be said that the non-petitioner has become the owner of the truck. The truck was seized from the custody of the petitioner. The non-petitioner has produced certain receipts to say that he has deposited the amount with the Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. The receipts are as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_262_MPLJ_1979Html1.htm</FRM> In all these receipts, there is a mention of the contract with the Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Receipts also mention that the payment is made on behalf of Bhagwanlal for vehicle No. MPN 5858, but the receipts do mention that this payment is made by non-petitioner No. 1. There is also a receipt produced which is dated 10-12-76, and which shows that Rs. 6,000 were paid to the petitioner Bhagwanlal. I do not express any opinion regarding the genuineness or otherwise of this receipt. The general power of attorney which is produced in the trial Court says as under :-