DINESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Misc. Petition No. 896/98 has been filed by petitioners Dinesh and Sachin seeking the quashment of F.I.R. No. 363/98 of Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur. Misc. Petition No. 960/98 has been filed by the petitioner seeking the modification in the order dt. 28.10.1998 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jodhpur wherein while granting anticipatory bail it was ordered that the petitioners shall produce the seized Loader within seven days at the Police Station and that seizure would be treated a recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

(2.) MR . Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioners. contended that the F.I.R. does not disclose a commission of the cognizable offence, and therefore, it should be quashed. His contention was that even as per the contents of the F.I.R. there was Hire Purchase agreement between the parties and as the complainant had committed default in the payment of instalments, the petitioners were entitled to seize the Loader financed by them. He also pointed out that the complainant himself had agreed for the seizure of the Loader when the same was seized by the petitioners, he canvassed that the Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have directed the petitioner to produce the Loader at the Police Station and that the seizure by the police would be treated as recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Mr. Mehta submitted that if Cr. Misc. Petition No. 896/98 is allowed then petition No. 960/98 becomes in fructuous.

(3.) I have considered the above arguments. During arguments, both the learned Counsel had referred to the provisions of Hire Purchase Act, 1972 but subsequently both of them admitted that the Hire Purchase Act, 1972 has not come into force as yet. Sub -section (2) of Section 1 of the Hire Purchase Act, 1972 provides that the Act shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint. The Central Government issued a notification on 30.4.1973 which was published in the Gazette of India, Extra., Part II dt. 30.4.1973, appointing the date 1.6.1973 as the date on which the said Act shall come into force. This notification however was rescinded by subsequent notification dt. 31.5.191973 Extra., Part II dt. 31.5.1973 and 1.9.1973 was appointed as the date on which the said Act shall come into force. However, this second notification appointing date 1.9.1973 as the date of commencement of the Act was also rescinded vide notification dt. 30.8.1973 published in the Gazette of India Extra Part II dt. 30.8.1973. It has not been shown that subsequent to that notification any other notification appointing the date of the coming into force of the Act was notified. Therefore, it has to be held that the Act of 1972 has not come into force as yet. The transaction of Hire Purchase, therefore, shall be governed by the agreement entered into between the parties.