SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record of the lower court.
(2.) IT appears that Tractor No. RRN 7303 was recovered by the police in connection with the First Information Report No. 68 of 1994 registered at Police Station Mathaniya. An application was submitted before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class Osiyan by Shri Gokulram with the prayer that the Tractor recovered by the police be given in his supurdgi. After hearing the parties the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Osiyan by his order dated 27. 5. 1994 ordered that the Tractor be given at the superdgi of the Gokulram subject to the conditions imposed in the order. One of the conditions was that Gokulram would pay all the instalments which had fallen due up to 27. 5. 1994, to the bank which had advanced loan for the purchase of the Tractor. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid condition, Gokulram filed the revision petition No. 23 of 1994 in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur. The revision petition was disposed of by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur by order dated 23. 6. 1994. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, quashed the direction to deposit the instalments which had fallen due up to 27. 5. 1994 and confirmed the remaining portion of the order. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur should not have qua-shed the condition imposed by the Trial Magistrate that Gokulram, Non-petitioner No. 1 should deposit the instalments of loan which had fallen due up to 27. 5. 94 because this condition had been imposed by the learned Trial Magistrate with a view to ensure the repayment of the loan to the bank. It is further submitted by him that if the aforesaid condition is not restored Gokulram in all probability would not pay the instalments which are due against him and the petitioner bank would be put to loss. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the reasons given by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur for passing the impugned order dated 23. 6. 1994. So far as the repayment of loan amount is concerned, the learned Trial Magistrate did not possess any legal power to direct the Non-petitioner No. 1 to pay or to withhold the payment of the loan amount to the bank. The object of the provisions contained in Section 451 and 452 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is to ensure that the property in question is preserved till the disposal of the case. These provisions do not empower the Trial Magistrate to enforce any civil conduct between the bank which advanced the loan and the person who obtained the loan from the bank.
(3.) I, therefore, find no legal infirmity in the order dated 23. 6. 1994 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur. This petitioner, therefore, has no force. This petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismi-ssed. While parting with this order it may be observed that nothing contained in the order dated 23. 6. 1994 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, appears to stand in the way of the petitioner bank for taking steps for the recovery of the loan amount which may be due against the Non-petitioner No. 1. The petition is disposed of accordingly. .;