( 1 ) THE petitioners challenge by the present petition an order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 15 City of Ahmedabad whereby in exercise of the powers vested in him under sec. 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) he issued warrant bearing No. 50 of 1983 dated 8-6-1983 authorising the Police Officer of the Ellisbridge Police Station to seize transport vehicles bearing Nos. GRG 900 GRG 1072 GRS 5406 GRS 5407 GTD 4927 and GTD 5600 belonging to them.

( 2 ) 2 M/s. Sugesan Co. (Pvt.) Limited having its office at Madras has filed Criminal Complaint bearing Inquiry Case No. 27 of 1983 in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate Ahmedabad against the petitioners through its Branch Manager Mr. Manish K. Shah for the offences punishable under secs 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code alleging inter alia that the petitioners as partners of M/s. Nabros had executed an agreement on 30-4-1981 with M/s. Sugesan Company (Pvt.) Limited. (hereinafter referred to as the Company for the sale of transport vehicles at a total price of Rs. 35 0 0 (Rupees thirtyfive lacs ). The Company also alleged that it had paid to the petitioners a total sum of Rs. 16 50 0 by 18-9-1982 but the petitioners did not give delivery of the vehicles. The Company further alleged that when the agreement for sale was executed the petitioners had deliberately suppressed the fact that one of the vehicles was hypothecated with Bank of Baroda and that two other vehicles did not belong to the petitioners. The Company further alleged that the petitioners had pressurised them to part with a sum of Rs. 2 50 0 by way of interest as well as to apply to the Bank of Baroda for the transfer of hypothecation loan. The Company further alleged that on 11-4-1983 the petitioner No. 1 called on the Company at Madras and agreed to give delivery of the vehicles on 30-4-1983 and induced the Company to part with 10 post-dated cheques each of Rs. 1 0 0 (Rupees one lac) which were to be presented after the delivery of the vehicles. The further agreement was thus made on the visit of petitioner No. 1 at the Companys office at Madras and the agreement was evidenced by a written statement dated 11-4-1983 which was signed by the petitioner No. 1 on behalf of the petitioners and by one Bipinbhai K. Sheth and Rajendra K. Sheth for the Company. A copy of the same is produced at Annexure 5 to the Affidavit-in-Reply of the respondent No. 2. In order to inspire confidence in the mind of the Company the petitioners had invited the Companys officers to visit Ahmedabad to take inspection of the vehicles. Manishbhai Vijaybhai Pankajbhai and operator Kanakraj went to take inspection of the vehicles on 17-4-1983 when they realised that vehicles bearing Nos. GTD 5600 and GTD 4927 were not to be found. It was also realised that the original and in the vehicle (Hippo Prime Mover) bearing No. GRG 1072 was changed by the petitioners. They made an inquiry from the petitioner No. 1 who was present but no satisfactory reply was given. The Officers of the Company thereupon made an inquiry at the R. T. O. about the vehicles Nos. GTD 5600 and GTD 4927 and it was found that in the R. T. O. Records these two vehicles did not run in the name of the petitioner but they were in the name of Narendra and Brothers and it was further found that these two vehicles were hypothecated to Navdeep Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Company thus found that although the petitioners knew that these two vehicles did not stand in the names of the petitioners and that one of them was hypothecated with Navdeep Co-operative Bank Ltd. they suppressed these facts from the Company and induced the Company to enter into the above stated contract and also illegaly induced the Company to part with a large amount. It is alleged that the petitioners had by deliberate design fraudulently and dishonestly induced the Company to part with a large amount which they would not have done h