CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts(1987) 11 P&H CK 0040

Subhash Chander vs State of Haryana and anr.

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 24 November 1987 · Citation: (1988) 1 RCR(Criminal) 147

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.S.Sodhi, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 1036 of 1987 & Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7354 of 1987 (O&M)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 396 words

S.S. Sodhi, J. (Oral)

1.

Respondent No. 2 is not present in person nor through counsel despite service.

2.

The matter here concerns the release of the truck HRO817 on supardari, during the pendency of the trial with regard to it.

3.

The petitioner Subhash Chander, who claims to be the owner of the said truck made a repot to the police on October 5, 1986 regarding the theft of this truck by respondent No. 2, who claims to be the financier of this truck and two others. On the registration of this case the truck was taken into possession by the police. Both the parties, that is, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 thereafter applied for the release of the truck on supardari. The trial Magistrate, vide his order of November 2, 1981, ordered the release of the truck to respondent No. 2.

4.

The petitioner, thereafter, moved the civil court claiming a declaration that he was the owner of the truck in question. An application under order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed whereby the respondent No. 2 was restrained from detaining the truck till the decision of the suit. Armed with this order, the petitioner moved the trial Magistrate again for the truck being given to him on supardari. This request was declined by the order of July 27, 1987 and it is the order that is not challenged in revision.

5.

In the face of the clear order of the civil court, holding the petitioner to be entitled to the possession of the truck in question, the trial Magistrate clearly fell in error in not releasing the truck on supardari to the petitioner. In ultimate analysis, it is a matter for the civil court to decide as to who is the owner of the truck in question. The civil court being seized of the matter having granted this relief namely possession of the truck to the petitioner, it was clearly incumbent upon the trial Magistrate to order the release of the truck to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the impugned order of the trial Magistrate is hereby set aside and the truck is directed to be released to petitioner on supardari on such terms and conditions as the trial Magistrate may deem appropriate, Dasti.

6.

This petition is disposed of accordingly.