AMARJIT SINGH CHADHA Vs. HARJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Amarjeet Singh-petitioner preferred the present revision petition against the orders dated November 20, 1991 passed by Shri K.K. Chopra, Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide which he set aside the order of S.DJ.M. Fatehabad dated 13/3/1991.

(2.) Car No. D.A.C. 8682 was taken into possession by the police in case F.I.R. No. 37 dated December 25, 1990. This car stands registered in the name of the petitioner, vide Annexure P-2, and is also insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. by the petitioner vide policy Annexure P-3. On October 20,1989, the respondent moved an application before the Magistrate that the Car in dispute has been ordered to be given on supurdari to Amarjeet Singh Chadha petitioner who is owner of the car and that as he holds special power of attorney, he is entitled to take the car on supurdari and the car be given to him on supurdari. After the orders were passed on this application, the petitioner moved another application making a prayer that he having cancelled the power of attorney in favour of Harjit Singh, the car be handed-over to him. This prayer was allowed by the S.D.J.M. Fatehabad vide his order dated March 13, 1991. Against this order, the respondent preferred the revision petition which was heard by Shri K.K. Chopra, Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, who allowed the same vide the impugned order. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that once the order for supurdari had been passed, it could not be reviewed by the Magistrate.

(3.) Under section 457, Cr. P.C., the Magistrate has to give the property to the person entitled to the possession thereof. The Magistrate has, thus, the power to ascertain as to the person who is entitled to the possession and for reaching that decision, he can determine as to who was the owner. In the present case the Magistrate had found that Amarjeet Singh Chadha the registered owner of the car was entitled to the possession of the car and it was to be released to him on supurdari. Since on October 20, 1989, Harjit Singh had held a power of attorney from the petitioner, his prayer that the car be handed-over to him was allowed. This was obviously an order to hand-over the car to an agent of the principle. The petitioner having cancelled the power of attorney and Harjit Singh being no longer his agent, he was entitled to offer the necessary Supurdginama and to take over the possession. The order dated March 13, 1991 can, from no angle, be described to be an order of review of the earlier order. The order throughout had been for delivery of the possession of the car to its lawful owner, namely the petitioner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had fallen in legal error while considering the case to be one of review.