BHOPAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dt. 18-2-1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh, in favour of respondent No. 2 Narain Nath for the interim custody of the tractor.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that in connection with FIR No. 822/85 P. S. Kotwali, Chittorgarh, Tractor No. RJK 6745 and trolley were seized by the police on 28-11-1985. One Pikesh Kumar made an application on 10-12-1985 for the interim custody of the tractor and trolley stating that owner of the vehicle was Narain Nath but the same was registered in his name as he was the financer of the tractor. The application of Pikesh Kumar was allowed by the Magistrate vide order dt. 6-1-86. However, Pikesh Kumar did not take the delivery of the vehicle, instead Chothmal claiming to be the power of attorney-holder of Pikesh Kumar made an application for the delivery of the tractor and trolley. The tractor and trolley were handed over to him on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 75,000/- and a surety of the like amount. It was agreed by Chothmal that he would not sell or mortgage the vehicle nor would make alteration in the body of the vehicle. Jagdish Gadiya stood surety for him. Thereafter on 27-11-87 Narain Nath made an application before the Magistrate for the custody of the tractor stating that he has been deceived by Chothmal when he got the tractor from the Court. This application of Narain Nath remained pending for more than 3 years. He again made an application on 11-4-91 for the custody of the tractor, stating that Pikesh Kumar had sold the tractor to Bhopal Singh (petitioner). The learned Magistrate gave notice of the application to Bhopal Singh. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order in favour of Narain Nath (respondent). Hence, this revision petition by Bhopal Singh.

(3.) Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to review his own order dt. 6-1-86. According to him, when once the Magistrate had passed an order in favour of Pikesh Kumar, he could not direct the custody of the tractor in favour of Narain Nath. His further submission was that Narain Nath being not the registered owner of the tractor, cannot ply the same, whereas the petitioner being the registered owner is the best person entitled to the interim custody of the tractor.