JAGTAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Jagtar has filed this application under sec. 482, Cr. P. C, against the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisingnagar dated Aug. 23, 1986 by which the truck in dispute has been ordered to be handed over jointly to non-petitioners Sajjan Singh and Harbans Singh on their submitting supurdginama in the sum of Rs. 75,000.00 each along with two sureties.

(2.) The facts giving rise to thus application briefly stated, are that the truck No. RRC 9095 had been purchased by Jagtarsingh after taking loan from the Rajasthan Financial Corporation in the sum of Rs. 1,77,000.00on Sept. 16,1985- Later, on Aug. 16, 1986 he sent a report by registered post to the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar alleging that he had gone to attend a 'Sangat', of which one Roshanlal was 'Mukhiya', on July 20, 1986. Many other persons also attend the 'Sangat', In the evening Roshanlal asked him to carry passengers in his truck from the dera of Sangat near Raisinghnagar to Ganganagar. On this request, the petitioner agreed to carry the passengers to Ganganagar. The petitioner was asked to stay at the 'Dera' itself and his father-in-law 'accompanied the truck. It is further alleged that after the truck had left the 'Dera' in the night Roshanlal confined him in a room where Roshanlal & one Harbans Singh compelled him to agree to transfer the truck in their favour. On his refusal to do so, he was beaten & was further threatend to dire consequences. He further alleged in the report that on July 21, 1986, he was carried to Raisinghnagar and there, a stamp was purchased and he was taken to a person, who was alleged to be a Magistrate in the Sanganeri courts at Jaipur in Court No. 3, and was resident of 37, P.S. tehsil Raisinghnagar. There he was compelled to put his signatures on the stamp papers without the documents being read over to him. It is further alleged that than he was taken to a 'Vakil', before whom also, he was made to put his signature on various papers without those papers being read over or explained to him He was. then, carried to 26 P.S. and again confined into a room, from where he released on July 23, 1986. The case of the petitioner goes on further to the effect that on being released from 26 P.S., he came to Surat Singh, his driver, and narrated to him the whole story, whereupon Suratsingh asked him to wait and enquire about the truck. It is alleged that the petitioner remained busy in search of the truck and later came to know that the truck had been carried away by one Sajjansingh (son-in-law of Harbans Singh) to Bombay. On this, the aforesaid report was sent by him to the Police Station on Aug. 6, 1986. The aforesaid report appears to have reached the Superintendent of Police on Aug. 7, 1986 and the same was forwarded to the Police Station. Raisinghnagar where it reached on Aug. 16, 1986. A case was registered and investigation started. During the course of investigation, the truck was recovered from the possession of Sajjansingh at Ganganagar. Thereupon, Jagtarsingh on the one hand and Harbans Singh and Sajjansingh on the other, moved application for the custody of the truck. The case put forwarded by the present petitioner has already been stated above. The case of Harbans Singh and Sajjansingh on the other hand, appears to be that after Jagtarsingh had purchased the truck, he required more finance to run the business and thereupon he took one Prem Kumar as partner in half/half share and Prem Kumar invested a sum of Rs. 38,000.00. Later, Prem Kumar sold away his half share in the truck to Sajjansingh and thus, Sajjansingh acquired half share in the truck. So far as Jagtarsingh is concerned with regard to the half share in the truck, he sold the same to Harbans Singh. It is stated that the story put forward by Jagtarsingh that he had been confined and compelled to execute a sale-deed or agreement to in favour of Harbans Singh, was concocted one and as a matter of fact, he had executed the document with free consent. Harbans Singh and Sajjansingh filed the documents-agreement to sell, photostat copy of the agreement entered into between Prem Kumar and Sajjansingh and the affidavits of Jagtarsingh and Sajjan Singh etc. After hearing both the parties, the learned Magistrate found that Harbans Singh and Sajjan Singh were entitled to the possession of the truck and, therefore, he ordered the truck to be handed over to them, as aforesaid. Aggrieved of this order, the petitioner Jagtar Singh has come up before this court.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the relevant documents.