Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1113 (RAJ)

Babu Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2012-05-03

NISHA GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 23.11.2002 whereby the order has been passed against the present petitioner to deposit the loan amount. 2. The contention of the present petitioner is that he has filed a report against Bhomaram and others for the offences under Sections 147, 323 and 382 Indian Penal Code After investigation, Bhoma Ram and others have been acquitted but on appeal, the learned Sessions Judge has ordered that the loan amount should be deposited with the bank. 3. The contention of the present petitioner is that these types of orders could not be passed by a criminal Court and only civil Court is authorised to direct as above. 4. The contention of the respondent is that a tractor was given to the present petitioner on interim custody on the condition that he will pay the bank loan and furnish a supurdginama with sureties. The present petitioner furnished supurdginama and sureties and complied the order partially but he has not deposited the bank loan and he has not assailed the order dated 11.7.1991 for interim custody of the vehicle and when the order dated 11.7.1991 has not been complied with, appeal was filed by the respondents and order dated 11.7.1991 was affirmed by the appellate Court and it was ordered that payment of loan should be made by the petitioner. 5. In view of the above facts, when the present petitioner has received the vehicle on certain conditions, which are enumerated in the order dated 11.7.1991 and he has not complied with the conditions, the appellate Court has rightly ordered that the conditions should be complied with by the present petitioner. The present petitioner has not assailed the order dated 11.7.1991, rather he has complied with the order partially and took the vehicle in his custody. Hence, it does not lie in the mouth of the present petitioner to challenge the impugned order. 6. Hence, looking at the above, I find no perversity of illegality in the impugned order and the revision petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******