NAVIN AJWANI Vs. PRAVIN KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this revision against the order dated 16 -8 -2001, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Umaria, in Criminal Revision No. 94/2001, arising out of an order dated 17 -5 -2001, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Umaria, in Criminal Case No. 383/2000.

(2.) THIS is not in dispute that an ambulance bearing No. MP -18/7709 was obtained by respondent No. 1 from the petitioner, under Hire Purchase Agreement. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid vehicle was seized by Police Station Chachai in connection with an accident in respect of which offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code were registered. It is also an admitted fact that on the application moved on behalf of respondent No. 1, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Umaria, exercising jurisdiction over the area of accident and offences, pertaining to accident dated 3 -5 -2000, handed over the aforesaid vehicle on Supurdgi to respondent No. 1. Thereafter, the petitioner took possession of the aforesaid ambulance on 24th of August, 2000. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 1 again knocked the door of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Umaria, who ordered the petitioner, to produce the vehicle in the Court. A criminal revision bearing No. 432/2001 was filed on behalf of the petitioner in this Court, challenging the aforesaid order dated 9 -3 -2001, passed by the Chief Judicial magistrate, Umaria, in Criminal Case No. 383/2000. This Court, at the stage of admission of aforesaid criminal revision, observed and passed the following order: - It is urged that the vehicle in question, is subject matter of hire purchase agreement. On non -payment of instalments, the applicant is entitled to seize the vehicle as per agreement. Since the vehicle, in question, was given in Supurdnama to the non -applicant Praveen Kumar Gupta, it is in the fitness of things that the applicant should surrender the vehicle in the Court. The trial Magistrate may decide the application of the applicant under Section 457 Cr.P.C. in accordance with law. In compliance to aforesaid order passed by this Court, this petitioner approached the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Umaria once again with an application, filed under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On consideration of all the facts and the cited authorities, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered that the vehicle be given in Supurdgi to the petitioner, subject to the conditions (sic)ated in that order. The respondent No. 1 then challenged the aforesaid order dated 17 -5 -2001 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Umaria by filing a Criminal Revision No. 94/2001 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Umaria, who has allowed the said criminal revision on 16th of August, 2001, setting aside the aforesaid order dated 17 -5 -2001, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Umaria. It was ordered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the seized vehicle be handed over to respondent No. 1, for being kept in safe custody, till disposal of the criminal case. It is this order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Umaria, which is in challenge before this Court.

(3.) REFERRING to the observation made by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 432/2001 on 1 -5 -2001, it is submitted by Shri Surendra Singh that the vehicle was taken in possession under terms and conditions of the Hire Purchase Agreement and, therefore, the order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has to be restored by setting aside the order of the revisional Court. Shri L. S. Singh resists this revision mainly on two points. One, that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not competent to review its order dated 6 -5 -2000 and pass a Contrary order. In support of this argument he has drawn the attention of this Court to a decision in the case of Bhupinder Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in : 1987 CRi. L. J. 1330, wherein it was held that a Court cannot review its order during pendency of the case. Shri L. S. Singh lays stress on this argument also that if at all any amount under Hire Purchase Agreement was due to the respondent No. 1, the petitioner could have brought a civil suit against him, but was not competent to take possession of the vehicle. So far as the first submission made by Shri L. S. Singh is concerned, the order dated 6 -5 -2000 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Umaria, wherein the vehicle was ordered to be handed over to respondent No. 1 on Supurdgi. stood withdrawn and cancelled when this Court passed an order dated 1 -5 -2001, in Criminal Revision No. 432/2001 and, therefore, when the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate considered the petitioner's fresh application filed under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as directed by this Court on 1 -5 -2001 in Criminal Revision No. 432/2001, it cannot be said that he has reviewed the earlier order, as he was competent to consider the matter afresh. Secondly, it is not in each and every case that the registered owner may be adjudged to be entitled to take possession of vehicle, involved in an accident. As ovserved by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 432/2001, the petitioner took over possession of the vehicle on 24 -8 -2000, under the terms and conditions of Hire Purchase Agreement and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Umaria is found to have committed an illegality in setting aside the order dated 17 -5 -2001, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Umaria.