SHAMSUDDIN AHMED, J.

( 1 ) C. R. No. 1388 of 1985 is directed against an 'order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Midnapore on 24-8-1985 in Criminal Motion No. 120 of 1985 setting aside the order passed by the learned C. J. M. , Midnapore on 2nd May, 1985 giving the custody of Bus No. WGB 2929 to the petitioner in C. R. No. 119 of 1985. The other Revisional Application is directed for quashing the said proceeding pending before the learned C. J. M. , Midnapore wherein he has taken cognizance of an offence punishable under Ss. 406 and 420, I. P. C. and has directed to issue summons against the alleged accused therein. Accused persons are petitioners in this Revisional Application.

( 2 ) BRIEF fact leading to this applications are as follows : on 24th April, 1985 Ramaprasad Chatterjee filed a complaint alleging that he is the registered owner of the Bus in dispute and he intended to sell the same. At the intervention of accused No. 3 Wahid Kureshi the accused Zakir Kureshi and Sahid Kureshi agreed to purchase the same at a price of Rs. 78,000/- to which the complainant agreed. Accordingly an agreement was executed by the parties on 18-12-1984. The said agreement stipulated that Rs. 40,000/- would be paid in cash and the balance of Rs. 38,000/- would be paid to the complainant in six equal instalments of Rs. 6,333/- each. A sum of Rs. 40,000/- was paid to the complainant and the Bus along with relevant document was handed over to the accused persons. Agreement stipulated that if there is any one failure to pay the instalment Bus would be returned to the petitioner. The accused persons paid the first instalment by a cash of Rs. 1,633/- and a cheque for Rs. 4,700/- drawn on the Bank of India. Petitioner believing that the said cheque would be encashed granted a receipt for the entire amount of Rs. 6,333/- but the said cheque was dishonoured. The complainant informed the accused persons who wanted time for payment of the sale price but they did not pay any amount. The petitioner requested them to return the Bus but he was driven out. The accused persons were trying to sell the parts of the said Bus. On this complaint the learned C. J. M. issued process against the accused persons under Ss. 420 and 406, I. P. C. and also issued a search warrant for recovery of the said Bus. The Police recovered the said bus from the custody of the accused persons. The complainant filed a petition before the learned Magistrate for returning the bus to him. Clauses 9 and 10 of the deed of agreement provided that if the purchasers failed to pay even one instalment the seller would take back the bus with the help of law and the purchaser will be bound to return back the said Bus to the owner. The learned C. J. M. directed the return of the said bus to the complainant on his executing a bond of Rs. 80,000/- without prejudice, to ' the rights of the parties. Petitioner on execution of the said bond took custody of the said bus. Against this order of the learned Magistrate the O. Ps. in Criminal Revision No. 1388/85 moved a revision application before the learned Sessions Judge. By the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the learned C. J. M. and sent the case back for further consideration. In the mean-time the police took possession of the said bus from the petitioner. In Criminal Revision No. 1388/85 the petitioner has challenged this order of the learned Sessions Judge and in the other revisional application accused Nos. 1 and 2 have moved this Court for quashing the said proceeding pending before them.

( 3 ) MR. C. R. Das appearing for the petitioner has contended that since the sale of the bus is not complete and all the documents relating to the bus stand in his favour the learned Magistrate is justified in putting the bus in his custody without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. On the other hand, Mr. Banerjee appearing for the O. Ps. has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was right in ho

Click Here to Read the rest of this document