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
5 paragraphs · 326 wordsU.S. Tripathi, J.—List revised. None present to press the revision. Heard the learned A.G. A. and perused the record.
Tractor No. U.T.O./5061 along with its trolley was seized by the police in connection with case Crime No. 227 of 1995 under Sections 279/304A/427 I.P.C. P.S. Khetasarai, District Jaunpur. The opposite party No. 3 Kalu Yadav and opposite party No. 2 Lalu Yadav moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur for releasing the above tractor in their supurdagi. Rampher Gupta, applicant also moved another application for releasing the tractor in his supurdagi. The learned Magistrate, vide its order dated 4111995 rejected both the applications. The opposite party No. 3 as well as Rampher Gupta preferred criminal revision No. 254 of 1995 and 269 of 1995 before the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur. The above revisions were decided by Special Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur by a consolidated judgment and order dated 1081998 by which revision filed by Kalu Yadav and others was allowed and that filed by applicant Rampher Gupta was dismissed. The tractor in question was ordered to be given in supurdagi of opposite parties No. 2 to 5 on furnishing personal bond and one surety for Rs. 1 Lac each to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned and with a direction that they shall keep the tractor in their safe custody, shall not dispose of and shall produce before the Court as and when required. The above order of the Sessions Judge was challenged in this revision.
By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has made temporary arrangement regarding custody of the tractor. Final order regarding disposal/delivery of tractor is to be passed by the trial Court at the time of decision of criminal case. Moreover, Kalu Yadav was found registered owner of the tractor in question. Therefore, this revision has no force and is rejected summarily.
Interim order dated 2561999 has already been vacated, vide order dated 12111999.
Revision dismissed.
