JUDGMENT 1. - Motor truck, registration No. DL-GA-3518 (the truck), was seized by the police during the investigation of a case under section 279 IPC registered vide FIR No. 222/95 of Police Station - Shivdaspura, District-Jaipur. The truck is registered in the name of the petitioner firm. Shri Radheshyam Pareek filed an application before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur, as attorney of the petitioner firm, praying that the truck be given to him on `supardaginama'. Along with the application, he filed a copy of the partnership deed of the petitioner firm and the Power of Attorney executed in his favour on behalf of the petitioner firm by Shri Narendra Pal Singh, one of the partners of the petitioner firm. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide the impugned order dated 4.1.1996, has rejected the application on the ground that there was nothing to show that Shri Narendra Pal Singh, who is one of the partners of the petitioner firm and who had executed the Power of Attorney in favour of the applicant, was authorised to execute the same on behalf of all the partners and also on the ground that even the licence of the driver of the truck had hot been produced. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court by filing this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code). 2. I have heard Shri M.R. Singhvi, the learned counsel for the petitioner firm, Shri G. Bardar, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have also perused the impugned order. 3. Shri M.R. Singhvi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that with a view to avoid the delay, which was likely to be caused in getting the truck, another Power of Attorney executed by other partners of the petitioners firm also was filed and the truck was given on `supardaginama' to the above said applicant, but such type of difficulties are being faced in the learned lower courts. He has thus prayed that the matter be decided on merits so that in future no such difficulty arises while dealing with such cases. 4. He has thus prayed that the matter be decided on merits so that in future no such difficulty arises while dealing with such cases. 4. Section 18 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (the Act) Provides that a partner of the firm is the agent of the firm for the purpose of the business of the firm and section 19 of the Act provides that act of a partner which is done to carry on, in the usual way, business of the kind carried on by the firm, binds the firm and this implied authority of the partner covers the acts done by a partner except those mentioned in clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (2) of section 19 of the Act. 5. It is not disputed before me that the petitioner is a partnership firm within the meaning of the Act and Shri Narendra Pal Singh is one of its partners. There cannot be any dispute that one of the business of the firm would be to maintain and preserve the property of the firm and further that the truck in question, which was the property of the firm, was seized by the police in the above said case and it could not be preserved by the firm except by taking possession thereof either on `supardaginama' or otherwise. Not only no one else came forward to challenge the authority of the applicant to take the possession of the truck on behalf of the petitioner firm on `supardaginama' but even otherwise the act of Shri Narendra Pal Singh in executing the Power of Attorney on behalf of the petitioner firm in favour of the applicant was the act of the firm and the application filed by the applicant for being given the truck on `supardaginama' could not have been legally rejected by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and no provision has been brought to my notice which authorises the Magistrate not to give the truck on `supardaginama' in case the licence of the driver of the truck had not been produced. It appears that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate without adverting to the provisions of the Act. 6. It appears that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate without adverting to the provisions of the Act. 6. Consequently, I accept this petition, set aside the impugned order dated 4.1.1996 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Case No. 4/96, but since the truck has already been taken on `supardaginama' by the petitioner firm, as mentioned above, no directions are required to be given in the matter.The petition stands disposed of accordingly. *******