High Courts

Jarnail Singh vs Gurdev Singh

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 6 February 1995 · Citation: (1996) 1 AICLR 475 : (2005) 4 Crimes 366 : (1995) 2 RCR(Criminal) 267

HON’BLE JUDGES
T.H.B.Chalapathi, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 86 of 1992
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 693 words

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

1.

This revision petition is filed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar in Criminal Revision No. 4 of 1991 dated 4.1.1992. The facts leading to the finding of this revision petition may briefly be stated as follows :

2.

Petitioner Jarnail Singh filed an application under Section 97 Code of Criminal Procedure stating that he is owner of tempoo bearing No. PLJ9994 and that the said tempoo was stolen and that he gave a report to the police but no action was taken by the police and he found the tempoo parked in the house of Gurdev Singh (the respondent herein). Therefore, he prayed that a search warrant be issued. On the said application, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nakodar issued a search warrant. The tempoo was recovered from the custody of Gurdev Singh and was produced before the Magistrate. Thereafter Gurdev Singh filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nakodar for release of the vehicle to him. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class by his order dated 8.8.1991 directed the tempoo to be given to the police of Police Station, Lohian, vehicle dismissing the application filed by Gurdev Singh. Aggrieved by the same Gurde Singh preferred a revision petition to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar in Criminal Revision No. 4 of 1991. By her impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the tempoo to be given to Gurdev Singh on sapurdari. Aggrieved by the said order, Jarnail Singh filed the above revision petition.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he is owner of the tempoo and that he should be given the custody of the tempoo. Whereas, it is contended by the learned counsel for respondent Gurdev Singh that he purchased the tempoo from Sukhdev Singh and that the tempoo was subject matter of agreement with Baba Motors Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. on hire purchase basis and Sukhdev Singh paid certain instalments to Baba Motors Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter he i.e. Gurdev Singh paid instalments and that he has been in rightful possession of the tempoo and, therefore, there are no grounds warranting interference with the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge directing the tempoo to be given to him on sapurdari.

4.

There is no dispute that the tempoo was recovered from Gurdev Singh on application filed by Jarnail Singh. Jarnail Singh has not made an application for release of tempoo in his favour prior to 8.8.1991. It is Gurdev Singh who moved the court by filing an application for release of the tempoo. He has also produced the receipts showing the payment of instalments to Baba Motors Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the registered owner of the tempoo and, therefore, the custody of the tempoo should have been given to him. But it has been held in Sat Singh v. State of Punjab, 1986(2) RCR 430 , that it is not essential that vehicle must be given to the person in whose name it stands registered. Both Jarnail Singh and Gurdev Singh are claiming the ownership of the vehicle in possession. The respondent Gurdev Singh filed documents to show that he has paid instalments under the hire purchase agreement. Admittedly, the vehicle has been taken into custody from Gurdev Singh, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge is right in directing the vehicle to be given to Gurdev Singh on sapurdari on his furnishing indemnity bond in the sum of Rs. 80,000/ with an undertaking to produce the vehicle in question as and when required by the Court and also to indemnify the same to the better claimant in case any other person or Jarnail Singh succeeds in establishing his title or claim over the vehicle in question. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

5.

The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner Jarnail Singh to establish his right to the vehicle in a court of law and seek the custody of the vehicle.

Revision dismissed.