DEVI CHAND JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions relate to the delivery of tractor No. RJN 1193, cultivator and displough seized in C. R. No. 18 of 1990 at Police Station, Sirohi, and therefore, I propose to decide both the petitions by this common order.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that on February 20, 1990, the complainant Devi Chand filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, against Chhelsingh and Laxman Dan for offences under Section 406 and 379, I. P. C. THE learned Magistrate sent the report for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sirohi, who, after necessary investigation, presented the challan under Sections 406 and 379, I. P. C. against the accused in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi. During investigation, the police seized the tractor, cultivator and the displough. After the seizure of the tractor, cultivator and the displough, Laxman Dan as well as Devi Chand, both, moved separate applications for the delivery of the tractor along with the cultivator and the displough to them. THE learned Magistrate, by his order dated April 19, 1990, ordered for the delivery of the tractor, the cultivator and the displough to Devi Chand on certain conditions, Dissatisfied with the order dated April 19,1990, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Laxman Dan filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi, and Devi Chand, aggrieved with the conditions imposed at the time of delivery of the tractor, cultivator and the displough, filed a miscellaneous petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. before this Court, which is registered as S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 202 of 1990 (Devi Chand vs. the State of Rajasthan and another ). THE revision petition filed by Laxman Dan was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated June 13,1990, set-aside the order passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, and ordered for the delivery of the tractor along with the cultivator and displough to Laxman Dan. It is against this order, passed by the learned Sessions Judge that Devi Chand filed SB. Civil Miscellaneous petition No. 240/1990 (Devi Chand vs. the State of Rajasthan and another ).

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the tractor was sold by Chhelsingh or Laxman Dan nor the custody of the tractor was forcibly taken from Devi Chand. Devi Chand, in the complaint itself, has mentioned that Chhelsingh S/o Laxman Dan took-away the tractor from him and refused to give it back. No cognizance against Laxman Dan or Chhelsingh has been taken under Section 379, I. P. C. Even as per the admitted case of Devi Chand, he has paid only Rs. 5000/- and according to him, the balance amount of Rs. 17. 000/- is to be paid by him, which he has not, admittedly, paid. The payment of Rs. 9000/- by way electric motor is also in dispute. There is a condition in the agreement dated April 29,1989, that if the payment will not be made within three months the Laxman Dan will be entitled to get the tractor back. ' Even as per the version of Devi Chand, he has not made the payment of the balance amount of Rs. 17,000/- itself. The alleged agreement dated January 9,1990 does not lead anywhere. The registration of the tractor is in the name of Laxman Dan and at the relevant time, the tractor was seized from the custody of Chhelsingh S/o Laxman Dan. Considering all these facts, I am of the view that the Learned Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality in giving the custody of the tractor, cultivator and the displough to Laxman Dan.