JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is a revision petition against the order dated 30-10-1977, passed by Shri V. S. Pyasi, Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal appeals No. 210 of 1977 and 212 of 1977 against the order passed by shri S. A. Naqvi, Judicial Magistrate, First Class Raghogarh, on 29-7-1977 in criminal Original Case No. 49 of 1977. ( 2. ) THE petitioner Bhagwanlal purchased a truck (No. MPN 5858) for rs. 1,01,171 on 10-10-1975, and paid Rs. 26,171 to the Company on the date of the purchase and the balance of Rs. 75,000 was to be paid subsequently * and, therefore, the petitioners entered into a Hire-purchase agreement with tata Company through M/s. Singhi Brothers* Indore. The truck was registered in the name of the petitioner and even today, it stands in the name of the petitioner. On 9-12-1976, the petitioners executed a General power of Attorney in favour of non-petitioner No. 1 Govind Prasad. Through this power of attorney, the petitioners authorised non-petitioner No. 1 to act and exercise all powers in relation to the said truck on his behalf. On 2-7-1977, non-petitioner No. 1, lodged a report at police station, Jamner about theft of the said truck. On this report, the police Jamner registered a case under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. On 15-7-1977, police Ashoknagar seized the truck from the possession of the petitioner and handed it over to police, Jamner. Police, Jamner produced the truck in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First class Raghogarh where the criminal case about the theft of the truck was pending. The petitioner filed an application in the Court for giving the truck on supurdagi to him. The non-petitioner No. 1 also filed a similar application. The learned trial Court rejected both the applications. Both the parties went in appeal before the Sessions Judge, Guna. While deciding appeals of both the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, passed an order that the truck be given to Govind Prasad non-petitioner No. 1 and his appeal was accepted while that of the petitioners was rejected. Against that the present revision is filed. ( 3. Both the parties went in appeal before the Sessions Judge, Guna. While deciding appeals of both the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, passed an order that the truck be given to Govind Prasad non-petitioner No. 1 and his appeal was accepted while that of the petitioners was rejected. Against that the present revision is filed. ( 3. ) THE only point which is urged before me is that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Guna is not according to law and he has not seen as to who is entitled for the possession of the said truck and under his conception of law, passed an order that the truck be handed over to Govind prasad. The learned counsel, appealing on behalf of Govind Prasad supported the order. From the documents which are on the record, it is clear that the truck was purchased by the petitioner and there is an agreement between him and Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Bombay. It is dated 10-10-1973. The number of this agreement is 10978. Then, there is a mention in the agreement itself how the amount is to be paid. The agreement also specifically says that unless and until the full amount is paid the ownership will remain with the Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. The value of the said truck is Rs. 1,39,521 out of which initial amount is to be paid by instalments in 35 months. Then, there is a certificate of Insurance which is also in the name of the petitioner Bhagwanlal Amarchand Sahu. The policy No. is 448666053 with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The registration of the truck is also in the name of Bhagwanlal son of Amarchand and the power of attorney given by Bhagwanlal shows that non-petitioner No. 1 was only an agent working on his behalf. The non-applicant has produced an agreement to show that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the non-petitioner for the purchase of the said truck. But suffice it to say here that according to the agreement the whole amount has not yet been paid. Therefore, even though the agreement is taken into consideration, it cannot be said that the non-petitioner has become the owner of the truck. The truck was seized from the custody of the petitioner. But suffice it to say here that according to the agreement the whole amount has not yet been paid. Therefore, even though the agreement is taken into consideration, it cannot be said that the non-petitioner has become the owner of the truck. The truck was seized from the custody of the petitioner. The non-petitioner has produced certain receipts to say that he has deposited the amount with the Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. The receipts are as under: In all these receipts, there is a mention of the contract with the Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Receipts also mention that the payment is made on behalf of Bhagwanlal for vehicle No. MPN 5858, but the receipts do mention that this payment is made by non-petitioner No. 1. There is also a receipt produced which is dated 10-12-76, and which shows that Rs. 6,000 were paid to the petitioner Bhagwanlal. I do not express any opinion regarding the genuineness or otherwise of this receipt. The general power of attorney which is produced in the trial Court says as under :- "know ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that I, Bhagwanlal son of Amarchand of Jawabar Marg, Indore at present resident of Raghogarh district Guna M. P. do hereby nominate and appoint Shri Govindprasad chhitarlal Swarnkar, Binaganj, District Guna, M. P. as my true and lawful attorney for myself and in myself and in my name and on my behalf to do execute all, or any of the following deeds and things in respect of the truck in the question. " This clearly shows that the non-petitioner was only an agent of the petitioner, the agreement also, which is alleged to have been entered on 9-12-1973, states that as the truck has been taken on Hire-purchase agreement with the Tata engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. and Bhagwanlal son of Amarchand and, therefore, the Truck cannot be transferred in the name of Govind Prasad. But, when the whole amount will be paid under the Hire-purchase agreement, then Bhagwanlal will transfer the truck in the name of Govind prasad. Therefore, the position which emerges from the facts and the documents of the case is that Bhagwanlal is the sole owner of the truck, that the Hire-purchase agreement is in his name, that the registration is also in his name and the insurance of the truck also is in his name. Therefore, the position which emerges from the facts and the documents of the case is that Bhagwanlal is the sole owner of the truck, that the Hire-purchase agreement is in his name, that the registration is also in his name and the insurance of the truck also is in his name. Govindprasad is only an agent acting on behalf of Bhagwanlal. Only thing is that Govindprasad has paid the amount of Rs. 23,900 under the agreement. But, it is also clear that he has not paid the whole amount yet. Therefore, his position is not better than that of an agent only. Therefore, the order of the trial Court of handing over of the truck to Govindprasad cannot be maintained. ( 4. ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied on this Courts judgment in Ramprakash v. State of M. P. , 1978 MP L J Note 52. and submitted before me that when the registration is in the name of the petitioner, then he wilt be presumed to be the owner prima facie till registration is transferred in the name of some other person and he will be responsible for breach of obligation under the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, the order of the appellate Court is not correct. He referred me to a judgment of this Court in State v. Gopal, 1962 MPLJ Note 217, but that case is not applicable to the case in hand. In reply, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner referred me to Gujarat High Court judgment in Nandram v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1967 Guj. 80 . and Supreme Court judgment in seth Loon Koran v. I. E. John, AIR 1969 S C 73. Decision in Nandram v. State of Gujarat (supra) was considered in the decision in Ramprakash v. State of M. P. (supra ). Therefore I need not dilate on the matter. I can only say that this ruling is of no help to non-petitioner No. 1. Seth Loon Karan v. I. E. John (supra) deals with an altogether different proposition. In that case, the appellant was indebted to a Bank. He executed a power of attorney in favour of the Bank authorising the Bank to execute a decree obtained by the debtor against a third person and credit the realisations to the debtors account. The Bank levied execution of the decree. In that case, the appellant was indebted to a Bank. He executed a power of attorney in favour of the Bank authorising the Bank to execute a decree obtained by the debtor against a third person and credit the realisations to the debtors account. The Bank levied execution of the decree. The execution application was filed in the name of the appellant, but it was signed by the manager of the Bank. On this basis, it was held that the power given to the Bank was a power coupled with interest and same was irrevocable in view of section 202 of Contract Act. Secondly, it was also held that the Bank was merely authorised to act as agent of the appellant and the appellant continued to be the owner of the amount due under the decree and therefore the Bank was not assignee of the decree in law. The power, however, constituted an equitable assignment of the amount due under the decree or so much of that amount as was necessary for discharging the debts due to it, and on the strength of the equitable assignment in its favour the Bank could execute the decree. On the basis of this, the learned counsel wanted me to hold that the power of attorney given by the petitioner to non-petitioner is irrevocable and it is with interest but here that is not the point before me. The question involved is as to whom the possession of the truck should be given and while deciding the matter, as I have already indicated above, it is to be seen from whose possession of the same. Therefore, this ruling also is of not much help to non-petitioner No. 1. But, in this case, as I have indicated above, certain amount is deposited on behalf of this there should be some security for that amount. The total amount comes to Rs. 24,000 including the amount given under the so-called receipt. Therefore, if the petitioner gives Bank guarantee for the amount of Rs. 24,000 and a security to the tune of Rs. 79,000 then the truck may be handed over to the petitioner. ( 5. ) THE result is that the revision is allowed. The order of the Additional sessions Judge is set aside and it is ordered that truck No. MPN 5858 be handed over to the petitioner Bhagwanlal if he gives bank guarantee for Rs. 79,000 then the truck may be handed over to the petitioner. ( 5. ) THE result is that the revision is allowed. The order of the Additional sessions Judge is set aside and it is ordered that truck No. MPN 5858 be handed over to the petitioner Bhagwanlal if he gives bank guarantee for Rs. 24,000 from a nationalised bank and also gives security for Rs. 79,000 to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the condition that the truck will be produced before the trial Court as and when necessary as ordered by the trial Court. Revision allowed.