Judges : S.MARIMUTHU
Biju - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Case No : Crl. M.C. Nos. 3408 and 3570 of 1997
Decided On : 03/02/1998
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner: P. Vijayabhanu, Advocate. For the Respondent: K.T. Sankaran (for No. 3), Public Prosecutor (for Nos. 1 and 4), G. Hariharan (for No. 2) and M. Rajagopalan (for No. 5), Advocates.
Temporary Custody - Maruthi Car - The court held that the vehicle can be returned for temporary custody under section 451, Cr.P.C. to the person from whom it was seized by the police, considering the potential damage to the vehicle if left exposed to sun and rain during investigation.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute over ownership and sale of a Maruthi Car, leading to complaints and criminal cases. Petitioners filed for temporary custody of the vehicle, which was dismissed by the Magistrate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the vehicle should be returned to the petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 3570/97 for temporary custody, with specified conditions.
Issues: Dispute over temporary custody of the Maruthi Car, legal provisions under section 451, Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that a valuable vehicle like a Maruthi Car, if left exposed to sun and rain during investigation, could sustain heavy damage, and therefore, can be returned for temporary custody to the person from whom it was seized by the police.
Final Decision: Crl. M.C. No. 3570/97 is disposed of as specified, and Crl. M.C. No. 3408/97 stands dismissed.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 3570/97 and the learned counsel appearing for the additional respondent, namely, Sakkir Hussain and also the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 3408 of 1997. I examined the submission of the learned counsel as well as the papers available before me. Their arguments as well as the papers available would disclose that a Maruthi Car bearing No. M.F.C. 8108 originally was owned by one Pushpa Raheja of Bombay who sold the same on 8-1-97 to one Biju who is the petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 3408 of 1997. Biju in turn sold the vehicle to one Sakkir Hussain who has been brought on record as additional respondent in both these petitions. Sakkir then sold the vehicle to one Joseph on 22-1-1997. Thereafter, the vehicle was sold by Joseph to Moideen the petitioner in Cril. M.C. No. 3570 on 12-2-1997. As there arose some dispute between the vendors and purchased with reference to the sale and purchase of the said vehicle, a complaint was given by Biju in Pavaratty Police Station wherein a case was registered in Crime No. 109/97 under section 420 read with 34, I.P.C. against Sakkir Hussain and Joseph. Moideen, the petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 3570/97 also lodged a complaint before the Pattambi Police Station against Joseph his vendor under Section 430, I.P.C. wherein a case was registered in Crime No. 191/97. Both the petitioners in the present criminal M.Cs, filed two petitions before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi for the temporary custody of the said vehicle under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate dismissed both the applications expressing his own reasons. Now questioning the above common order of the learned Magistrate, the present two Criminal Miscellaneous cases have been filed.
2. Now, the only point is whether the order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing both the petitions is sustained in law. A vehicle like a Maruthi Car, needless to say, is more valuable. There is nothing on record to show that it is kept under a roof or in a shed, by the police. Therefore when such a vehicle is parked in an open place exposing to sun and rain throughout the investigation, it will get damaged due to rain and sun. On account of it, the successful person as owner in this litigation will sustain a heavy loss. There is no undertaking, as borne out in records by the investigating agency who are in the custody of the vehicle that in case of damage being caused to the vehicle due to rain and sun they would compensate the real owner of the vehicle. That be the situations, I feel, as per the well settled principle of law, that the vehicle can be returned for temporary custody under section 451, Cr.P.C. to the person from whom it was seized by the police. In this context, it is admitted by both the counsel as well as by the public prosecutor that the vehicle was seized by the investigating agency only from the petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 3570/97. Therefore, the vehicle for the present will be returned to the petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 3570/97 for a temporary custody with the following conditions.
The Maruthi vehicle bearing No. M.F.C. 8108 will be returned to the petitioner C.P. Moideen (Crl. M.C. No. 3570/97) on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs. one lakh with two sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate. The petitioner Moideen is directed not to transfer the vehicle to anybody on any account until the Crl. prosecution is over. He will keep the vehicle in the same condition as it is now. He will produce the vehicle whenever required by the investigating agency for their investigation as well as he will produce before the Magistrate whenever the Magistrate requires.
In the result, Crl. M.C. No. 3570/97 is disposed of as aforesaid. And Crl. M.C. No. 3408/97 stands dismissed.
Order accordingly.
AI
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.