HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
N. C. Talukdar
MAHAMAYA DASI - Appellant
Versus
SANAT KUMAR LAW - Respondent
Criminal Revn. 457 Of 1968
Decided On : JUNE 11, 1968
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTIONS 22, 31, 112 - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - SECTIONS 516A, 517 - CUSTODY OF MOTOR VEHICLE - ORDER FOR DELIVERY TO PERSON FROM WHOM FOUND - PRINCIPLES - REGISTERED OWNER - RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute arose between a mother and her two sons over the possession of a motor vehicle. The mother, who was the registered owner of the vehicle, filed a complaint against her sons under Section 406, IPC, alleging that they had refused to return the vehicle to her after borrowing it. The Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, directed the delivery of the vehicle to the sons on a bond, subject to certain conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate was not sustainable in law. The court noted that the motor vehicle was a 'chattel personal' with specific provisions in the statute enjoining certain obligations and liabilities on the owner. The court held that it was just and fair that the custody of such a vehicle should either be with a third party like a garage or with the registered owner thereof.
Issues: 1. Whether the Chief Presidency Magistrate erred in directing the delivery of the motor vehicle to the sons, who were not the registered owners, on a bond? 2. Whether the registered owner of the vehicle should be entitled to the custody of the vehicle, despite the fact that the sons had been using it?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Chief Presidency Magistrate had erred in directing the delivery of the motor vehicle to the sons, who were not the registered owners. The court noted that the motor vehicle was a 'chattel personal' with specific provisions in the statute enjoining certain obligations and liabilities on the owner. The court held that it was just and fair that the custody of such a vehicle should either be with a third party like a garage or with the registered owner thereof.
Final Decision: The High Court made the Rule absolute, set aside the impugned order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, and directed him to make over the custody of the motor vehicle to the complainant-petitioner upon her executing a bond for Rs. 20,000 to produce the car in court on call and upon the condition that she would not be allowed to take the car and use the same outside the jurisdiction of Calcutta without the previous permission of the court, pending the disposal of the case in the court below.
( 1 ) THIS Rule must be made absolute,
( 2 ) THE Rule is directed against an order dated the 19th April, 1968 passed by Shri K. J. Sen Gupta, Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, directing the delivery of a motor vehicle to the accused-opposite parties on a joint bond of Rupees 20. 000 on condition that they would not be allowed to take the car and use it outside the jurisdiction of Calcutta without previous permission of the court.
( 3 ) THE facts leading on to the present Rule can be set out in a short compass. The case brings to light an unfortunate tussle between the mother and two of her sons and the subject-matter of the dispute is an Ambassador Mark II Car. No. WBG 2448. The parties come of a respectable family of Calcutta The complainant-petitioner, who is the mother is the widow of late Tulshi Charan Law and the two opposite parties are her sons. The late Tulshi Charan Law died leaving 6 sons and 4 daughters. Four of the sons live with the mother as also the youngest sister at 385/1, Keyatala Lane, Calcutta while two other sons who are the opposite parties in the present Rule live separate from the petitioner and others, at 10, Pretoria Street, Calcutta. Three of the daughters have been married. The complainant-petitioner is stated to have been appointed the administratrix pendente lite to the estate of the late Tulshi Charan Law in Testamentary Suit No. 9 of 1963, pending in the High Court. There have been ill-feelings for some time between the parties leading on to the two opposite parties leaving the family residence and put up at 10, Pretoria Street, Calcutta Even a criminal case was filed at Alipore by the opposite party No. 1 Sanat Kumar Law, against two of his brothers and others.
( 4 ) THE present incident has taken place against this background. A complaint was filed on 16-4-68 by the complainant-petitioner before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, praying for process against the two accused opposite-parties under Section 406. 1 P. C and also praying for a search-warrant for the seizure of the motor car No. WBG 2448 and making over the same, after seizure, to the petitioner on a proper bond, to be produced on call. It was averred therein that the petitioner is the registered owner of the said Ambassador Mark II Car No. WBG 2448, having purchased the same under a hire-purchase agreement dated 28-3-67 from M/s. Bhagirathi Investment Company and that the bluebook, tax-token, insurance certificate and other relevant documents all stand in the name of the petitioner The accused persons approached her on 2-4-68 at her residence and requested her to lend the said car for a day in connection with some urgent business and without suspecting anything wrong she agreed thereto and made over the car, on the understanding that it would be returned on the following day without fail. The complainant's case, in the petition of complaint, further is that the said car was not returned as promised and on 4-4-68 when she went to No. 10. Pretoria Street, accompanied by her driver, to take delivery of the car the accused persons refused to return the car and on protest, they threatened violence, compelling the petitioner thereby to leave the place without the car. Thereafter the petitioner tried in vain to get back the car, and ultimately the accused persons denied all knowledge thereof on 15-4-68. The petitioner apprehended that the accused persons were bent on removing the car to some unknown place for disposing of the same.
( 5 ) THE Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta examined the complainant and her witnesses on 16-4-68 and issued summons against the accused persons under Section 406, I. P. C. , fixing 11-6-68 for appearance. He also issued a search-warrant as prayed for, returnable by the same date. On 19-4-68 the accused persons appeared and were directed to be released on a P. R. bond of Rs. 500 each. With regard to the motor vehicle, which in the meanwhile was seized by the police on 17-4
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.