- (1.) Petition No. 36 of 1993 Nathu Ram v. State been filed against the Order dated January 12, 1993 adjourning the case for giving time to at the applicant to furnish ball bonds for their presence on subsequent dates instead of deciding it when they have made a written application pleading guilty. Subsequent events have taken different turn leading to some confusion about possession of tractor in question.
(2.) The Tractor in question was seized by Police for certain violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules framed thereunder on December 27, 1992. Accused Birma Ram and Nathu Ram alleged that the tractor was recovered from driver Birma Ram and owned by Nathu Ram. Idana Ram claims to be owner of the Tractor and alleges that the Tractor was in fact recovered from loana Ram and not from the two accused. Birma Ram and Nathu Ram were the accused persons and they pleaded guilty by filing written application. Instead of deciding the case, the motor was adjourned as aforesaid. On December 28, 1992, Nathu Ram had moved an application for delivery of Tractor to him. On December 30, 1992, Idana Ram also moved a similar application for delivery of Tractor to him. Before any order could be passed in this regard by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, this Court on February 9, 1993 made an order for delivery of the Tractor in question in the superdagi of the petitioner on his executing supurdagi na to a the satisfaction of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate trying the case. As idana Ram was not made a party in this petition, the order was passed in this absence. In pursuance of that order, the Tractor was deliver on to applicant Nathu Ram and since then it is his custody.
(3.) Alter the aforesaid order was passed Indana Ram moved an application before this Court under Section 4. Section 2 of the code of Criminal Procedure along with Stay application on May 17, 1993 for recalling the Order dated February 9, 1993 alleging that the order has been passed exparty without notice to him when his application for possession of the said Tractor was pending before the Magistrate. This application was registered as S.B. Criminal Misc Petition No. 258 of 1993 Idan Ram v. Stale and others with Stay application No. 166 of 1993. This Court by its order in Case No. 36/93 clarified on May 21, 1993 that the possession of the Tractor was delivered to Nathu Ram as a measure of saving the vehicle from vagaries of the weather on supurdginama, that is to say, without deciding it on merits and the Magistrate is free to direct Nathu Ram to produce the disputed Tractor before him. This was further clarified by the order dated May 27, 1993 when it was directed that the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur to complete the enquiry under Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and pass necessary orders regarding the disputed Tractor unaffected by the order passed in this case or in S.B. Cr. Misc Petition No. 258/93 (Idan Ram and Ors. v. State) and decide the proceeding independently. Thus it was amply made clear that supurdeginima ordered by this Court was only a temporary measure subject to the final order that was to be passed by the learned Magistrate after holding an enquiry concerning the return of the Tractor under seizure.;