JUDGMENT 1. 1.This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 8-2-94 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chittorgarh, by which the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and refused to order for the delivery of the truck to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 4-9-92 M/s. Prakash Road Lines Corporation Private Limited, Chanderia, through Jain Transport Company dispatched 300 cement bags to Birla Jute Industries, Ludhiana in a truck No. HR-14/2951. The driver and owner of this truck was Karan Singh. These 300 cement bags were to be unloaded in the Office of Birla Jute Industries Limited, Ludhiana Depot but the goods did not reach to Ludhiana Depot of Birla's upto 3-10-92. A First Information Report was, therefore, lodged by Om Prakash, Manager, Prakash Road Lines Corporation Private Limited at Police Station, Chanderia (Chittorgarh) on 7-10-92 and on the basis of this report, a case under Sections 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code was registered against Karan Singh and during the investigation the truck was recovered from village Badli (Ludhiana). After the seizure of the truck by the police in the criminal case, Prakash Road Lines Corporation Private Limited as well as the petitioner (Ashok Leyland Finance Company Limited, both, moved application for the delivery of the truck. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated 8-2-94 dismissed both the applications. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed this miscellaneous application for the delivery of the truck in question. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the truck in question was financed by the Ashoka Leyland Finance Limited, Jaipur and when the instalments were not paid by Indra Singh then as per the conditions of the hire purchase agreement, the custody of the truck was taken by the company and as per the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement, the company is the person best entitled for the delivery of the truck. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has submitted that Indra Singh was the registered owner of the truck and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was right in refusing the delivery of the truck to the petitioner. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has submitted that Indra Singh was the registered owner of the truck and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was right in refusing the delivery of the truck to the petitioner. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is not in dispute that the truck in question was financed by the Ashoka Leyland Finance Limited and the hire purchase agreement was entered into between Indra Singh and the company. The invoice of the truck was in the name of Ashoka Leyland Finance Company. Indra Singh did not make payment of the instalments due as per the terms of the hire purchase agreement. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate was not justified in refusing the delivery of the truck to the petitioner-applicant. 6. In the result, the miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, is allowed. The order dated 8-2-94 passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the application filed by the petitioner-applicant for the delivery of the truck, is set aside and if is ordered that the truck in question may be given on Supurdginama to Ashoka Leyland Finance Company Limited on its furnishing a surety in the sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- and an undertaking to the effect that the company will not alienate the truck in question by way of sale, mortgage, transfer etc. and will, also, not make any change, addition, alteration etc. in the body, colour or shape of the truck in question till the disposal of the criminal case pending in the trial Court and will produce the truck in the Court as and when directed to do so by the trial Court.Petition Allowed. *******