Back
1963 Supreme(Pat) 129
PATNA HIGH COURT
Anant Singh and G.N.Prasad JJ.
Sardar Singh Kohli
Versus
Swastik Financial Corporation (P.) Ltd., New Delhi
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 312 of 1963 ;
Decided On : NOVEMBER 21, 1963
A magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 516A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to making orders for the proper custody of property pending the conclusion of an inquiry or trial. The magistrate does not have jurisdiction to decide ownership disputes.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 516A - JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE - OWNERSHIP DISPUTE - POSSESSION OF PROPERTY - CUSTODY OF PROPERTY PENDING INQUIRY OR TRIAL - RETURN OF PROPERTY TO PERSON IN POSSESSION - PRINCIPLE OF RESTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute arose over the ownership of a truck between the petitioner, the financier, opposite party No. 3, the hirer, and opposite party No. 1, who claimed to be the owner and financier. The truck was deposited at a police station by opposite party No. 1, and a magistrate ordered its release in favor of opposite party No. 1. The petitioner challenged the magistrate's order, arguing that he lacked jurisdiction to decide the ownership dispute and that the truck should be returned to opposite party No. 3, who was in possession of it at the time the dispute arose.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction to decide the ownership dispute and that the truck should be returned to opposite party No. 3, who was in possession of it at the time the dispute arose. The court found that the magistrate had erred in considering the question of ownership and had failed to consider the certificate of registration and road permit, which were prima facie evidence of opposite party No. 3's possession of the truck.
Issues: 1. Whether the magistrate had jurisdiction to decide the ownership dispute over the truck. 2. Whether the truck should be returned to opposite party No. 3, who was in possession of it at the time the dispute arose.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 516A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to making orders for the proper custody of property pending the conclusion of an inquiry or trial. The magistrate does not have jurisdiction to decide ownership disputes. 2. The principle of restitution requires that property taken from a person in possession should be returned to that person, unless there is a lawful basis for depriving them of possession.
Final Decision: The court set aside the magistrate's order and directed that the truck be released to opposite party No. 3 upon furnishing a security bond of Rs. 50,000.
ANANT SINGH, J.
1. This application has been filed by Messrs. Autolite Financiers (Private) Ltd., Delhi, through its Chairman for a writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, but we have treated it as an application in revision in the circumstances as will appear hereafter.
2. The application has been filed against an order dated the 38th May, 1963 of a Magistrate, Sri S.N. Pandey 1st Class of Dhanbad at Baghmara, whereby he has released and handed over a truck bearing No. B. R. J. 1823 in favour of opposite-party No. 1, Messrs. Swastik Financial Corporation, Ltd., New Delhi, on furnishing a surety bond for Rs. 30,000, on condition that the truck would be produced in Court as and when required.
3. It appears that on the 6th May, 1963, one Kishun Kumnar Singh claiming himself to be the driver of the truck in question on behalf of opposite party No. 3, lodged a first information report before the Katras Police station alleging that he was driving the truck on behalf of his master, opposite party No. 3 when in the morning of the same date his truck was forcibly taken away by duping him by some persons, who had gone along on the truck and by some persons following in a car bearing No. B. R. R. 9310. The names of the persons taking away the truck were, however, not known to the driver. . . A case under Ss. 379 and 147, Indian Penal Code was duly registered, in the police station at Katras and the case was pending investigation by the police. On the fame date, that is, the 6th May, 1963 one Om Prakash, calling himself the manager of opposite party No. 1. Messrs. Swastik Financial Corporation (Private) Ltd., New Delhi, deposited the same truck at Baghmara police station with certain allegations the contents of which are, however, not on the record.
4. On the 13th May, 1963 an application was filed in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhanbad, by opposite party No. 3 and on behalf of the present petitioner for release of the vehicle in question in their favour with an averment that opposite party No. 3 was the hirer in respect of the vehicle under the petitioner on hire purchase system. Next day, that is, on the 14th May, 1963 an application was filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1 through Om Prakash asking for release of the vehicle in favour of opposite party No. 1 with an averment that opposite party No. 1 was "the owner of the aforesaid vehicle which was under hire purchase agreement with the said company", though the name of the hirer of the vehicle was not disclosed in the petition. The petition further disclosed that the hirer did not pay any instalment to opposite party No. 1 since the day of agreement, and, therefore, opposite party No. 1 "re-took possession of the vehicle on 6th May, 1963 and to avoid complication he surrendered the vehicle to Police Station Baghmara on the said relay." The Subdivisional Magistrate called for a report from the police on the petitions filed jointly on behalf of the present petitioner and opposite party No. 3 as also on the petition filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1.
5. The officer in charge of the Katras Police Station submitted a report on the 15th May, 1963. saying that the truck was an exhibit in a theft case registered on the 6th May, 1963, and that the appellants, meaning the present petitioner and opposite party No. 8, were the real owners of the truck and that it could be released to them on taking a bond for Rs. 50,000/- for the production of the truck when called for by the Court.
6. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order considered the claims of the parties, and after referring to the various documents adduced by the parties in support of their respective claims has found; "Materials and documents, therefore, very consistently support Swastil Financial Corporation (P) Ltd.s claim over the buck in question" and, therefore, he made an order for its release in favour of opposite party No. 1.
7. It is contended on behalf of the petitio
