(1.) THE apple of discord was a motor cab the subject matter of a criminal case instituted by Narendra Kumar Singh, Opposite Party No. 1, who is not the owner thereof. The car in question, as alleged, was left with the petitioner Bachraj Dugar for rendering service involving the exercise of labour and skill in connection with some repairs needed in the car in question. Due to some differences a case was instituted under Section 406 I. P. C. against Bachraj Dugar, the petitioner -accused. The owner was not a party to proceeding, is also the indubitable position. On conclu - sion of trial, the court on acquittal of the accused -petitioner, held that the petitioner had a lien over the property, in all probability bearing in mind the provisions contained in Section 170 of the Indian Contract Act, 1'872. But, unfortunately, the trial court had omitted to serve notice on the registered owner of the car, who was the only person entitled to make use of the car in question before rendering the order of disposal of the car: The trial Court passed the judgment and order on 17 -1 -77 acquitting the accused and disposing of the car in favour of the present petitioner.
(2.) COMPLAINANT Narendra being aggrieved by the order came up before the Court of Session under Section 454, Cr.P.C. 1973. The Court of appeal has set aside the order on the assumption that the accused had no lien or right of retention of the property oblivious of the provisions contained in Section 170 of the Indian Contract Act.
(3.) MR . P, N. Goswami, the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party has fairly submitted that the impugned order of the Appellate Court is not sustainable. However, the Counsel submits that the matter should go back to the trial Court for a just decision in view of snags contained in the proceeding before it. Counsel submits that the order of disposal of the car was made by the trial Court without serving any notice to 'the true owner' of the car, namely, the Opposite Party No. 2, Puranmal Mour, This is an admitted fact.