Delhi District Court
Baldev Singh vs . State C.R. No. 134/13 on 8 November, 2013
1
Baldev Singh Vs. State C.R. No. 134/13
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAJ RANI MITTRA: ASJ - 03 : SOUTH - EAST, SAKET
COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 134/13
BALDEV SINGH,
S/o Sh. Ram Singh,
R/o A171, Fateh Nagar,
New Delhi.
..... Revisionist
V E R S U S
The State
..... Respondent
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 23.05.2013
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER: 08.11.2013
DATE OF ORDER: 08.11.2013
O R D E R
The present revision petition U/s 397 Cr. P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 09.05.2013 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in case FIR No. 459/06 P.S. C.R. Park, wherein Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has passed an order for impounding the truck No. DL1G0639 and also directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 2
Baldev Singh Vs. State C.R. No. 134/13 4,00,000/ as penalty within 15 days of the order.
2 Notice of the revision petition was served to the State. 3 It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that wife of revisionist Late Smt. Amrit Kaur was having transport business and was the registered owner of the truck bearing no. DL1G0639 which was involved in a case U/s 279/304A IPC vide FIR No. 459/06 P.S. C.R. Park and was subsequently released on superdari. That she had executed a special power of attorney in favour of the revisionist being her husband to take delivery of the said truck on her behalf. That on the basis of special power of attorney he had filed an application for superdari of the said truck which was granted and a superdari bond in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/ was executed. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that Smt. Amrit Kaur was the registered owner and had accordingly executed superdari bond with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required. That during the trial of the case Smt. Amrit Kaur expired. However, the revisionist received summons to appear before the Court and produce the said truck on 01.05.2013. He moved an application on 09.05.2013 with the prayer that the revisionist after taking delivery of the truck had handed over the same to Smt. Amrit Kaur and therefore, had no control over the said truck. However, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the application and passed the impugned order. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that revisionist that revisionist was only attorney of the registered owner of the truck in question and therefore, cannot be held personally liable for the amount of superdari. That the superdari bond was executed on behalf of Smt. 3 Baldev Singh Vs. State C.R. No. 134/13 Amrit Kaur and that the undertaking was also that of Smt. Amrit Kaur to produce the truck in question and that Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate failed to appreciate that the superdari bond and undertaking of producing the truck in question was that of the registered owner and that he is not liable to produce the truck or to deposit the penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/. Hence the present revision petition. 4 The revision petition is vehemently opposed by Ld. Addl. PP for State, who submits that the special power of attorney which was executed by the registered owner namely Smt. Amrit Kaur has specifically mentioned in para no. 4 that the revisionist herein was also to 'defend the case regarding the said vehicle', vide para no. 5, he is 'to pay penalty, to obtain receipt from the concerned Court / authority' and vide para no. 6 'to do other acts, deeds and things which are even not mentioned in this special power of attorney'. That the superdari bond dated 19.10.2006 is also signed by the revisionist. That he cannot shy away from the responsibility of producing the truck and as such Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate had rightly dismissed the application of revisionist and had passed appropriate order of impounding the truck bearing no. DL1G0639 as well as directing the revisionist herein to deposite superdari amount of Rs. 4,00,000/ as he has failed to produce the truck in question.
5 I have heard arguments address by Sh. B.B. Sharma and Sh. Bakshish Singh, Advocates on behalf of revisionist and Sh. Sukhbeer Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for State at length and carefully perused the material placed before me. 6 Since the truck bearing no. DL1G0639 was released on superdari 4 Baldev Singh Vs. State C.R. No. 134/13 to the revisionist being special power of attorney of the registered owner and he has also signed the superdari bond. The conditions imposed as per the orders of superdari were upon him and therefore, he had to produce the vehicle in the Court as and when required.
7 Section 397 (1) of the Cr. P.C., 1973 confers the supervisory power on the Court of Sessions and the purpose is to rectify miscarriage of justice. The main consideration is to see whether substantial justice was done and it is only when there is illegality on the fact of the order or there are glaring defect in the order which has resulted in grave failure of justice, that the revisional jurisdiction should be invoked. In the case in hand, the impugned orders were passed by Ld. Trial Court after hearing the parties at length and judicially appreciating the material before it. There is no ambiguity in the provisions of law or its application by Ld. Trial Court. I find no merits in revision petition. Impugned order dated 09.05.2013 does not require any interference. Impugned order 09.05.2013 passed by Ld. Trial Court, SouthEast District, Saket Courts, New Delhi are hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.
8 Trial Court record be sent back alongwith copy of the order. Revision petition be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in the open Court on 8 day of November, 2013 th (RAJ RANI MITTRA) Addl. Sessions Judge03/SE Saket Courts, New Delhi.