- (1.) G. Malaviya, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY this application Kripal Singh has challenged the order dated 21. 9. 82 passed by the Judicial Magistrate I Class Farrukhabad in Misc. Case No. 10 of 1982 in thejproceed-ings of State v. Ram Chandra & Ors. , under Sections 406, I. P. C, Police Station Firozabad by which he had rejected the application of Kripal Singh for release of Tractor No. URD 2567 and its trolley No. URD 5803 in his favour. It appears that by an order dated 29. 6. 82, the Judicial Magistrate 1 Class Farruk habad had directed this tractor to be released in favour of Surendra Singh on his furnish ing two sureties for Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) each and personal bond in the same amount on the condition that whenever the Court directed him to produce the Tractor in Court, he shall produce the same. The applicant on coming to know of this order made the application for its release on which the impugned order had been passed. It is not disputed that initially the Tractor was owned by Kapuri Devi, Jagdish Singh and the applicant Kripal Singh. The case of Surendra Singh was that these three persons had sold the Tractor in his favour for Rupees fifty one thousand, whereafter he got the tractor registered in his name. However, the case of the applicant was that Surendra Singh by practising farud on the registered authority on the basis of a forged receipt got the tractor registered in his name and thereafter manipulated the order for release of the Tractor in his favour. Be that as it may, the Court below while passing the impugned order seems to be overavied by the fact that Kapuri Devi and Jagdish Singh had not joined the applicant Kripal Singh when he made the application for release of the said Tractor. However, the present petition has been filed by all the three viz Kripal Singh, Smt. Kapuri Devi and Jagdish Singh.
(3.) SRI K. S. Chauhan, learned Counsel appearing for Surendra Singh states that as no Vakalatnama is filed in the High Court, the present application in fact has not been filed by Kapuri Devi and Jagdish Singh, and the same should be treated to be filed only by Kripal Singh. This objection is of no consequence. All that I propose to, by the present order, is that if Kapuri Devi and Jagdish Singh really have moved this application in the High Court then the only reason that the Tractor was not released in favour of Kripal Singh on account of Kapuri Devi and Jagdish Singh not joining him should not hold the field. However, it appears that the Court below while passing the impugned order did not at all investigate into the allegations of Kripal Singh that the sale papers alleged to have been produced by Surendra Singh for getting the tractor registered in his name had been fabricated or had been obtained by practising fraud. Consequently the ordei dated 21. 9. 82 passed by the Judicial Magistrate I Class Farrukhabad mentioned above is hereby quashed. If a joint application is hereafter moved by SRI Kripal Singh, Smt. Kapuri Devi and Jagdish Singh for the release of tractor No. URD 2567 alongwith its trolley No. URD 5803, then the Magistrate concerned shall give an opportunity to both the sides and thereafter shall decide the question whether the earlier order passed by the Magistrate on 25. 6. 82 should be recalled or not, and whether the Tractor and trolley, mentioned above, should be released in favour of the applicant or not. If the application mentioned above is moved before the Magistrate concerned, he shall dispose of the said application within a time of two months from the date when the same is moved before him. This application is accordingly allowed. The Magistrate shall pass the order on the application, if moved as indicated above in accordance with the observation made by this order. Appeal allowed. .;