1983 Supreme(MP) 599

N. K. Singh, J.
Gyan Chand v. Ashok Kumar
Cr. Revn. No. 159 of 1977 (G); Decided on 16-12-1983.

Headnote:(1) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 451 -- intrim custody of truck -- may be given to a person other than a registered owner -- intrim injunction in Civil suit duly confirmed by High Court -- such person is entitled to have Custody of truck from criminal Court -- Civil P. C. 1908 -- O. 39 Rr. 1 & 2.

        (2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 39 Rr. 1 and 2 -- intrim injunction in favour of a person -- entitles him to have the custody of properly from Criminal Court Criminal P. C. 1973 -- S. 451.

        On 17-12-1976 petitioner Gyanchand and financial Damodar Das Jhanwar, and on 19-12-1976 non-petitioner No. 1 Ashok Kumar tiled separate applications claiming interim custody of Motor-truck No. MPW 7275 pending investigation and trial. However, shortly thereafter, on 20-12-1976 non-petitioner No. 1. Ashok Kumar also filed a civil suit before the Additional District Judge, Gwalior, seeking declaration of title to the Motor-truck in question on the basis of the alleged higher purchase and also an injunction against petitioner Gyanchand seeking to restrain the latter from obtaining custody of the truck from the criminal Court. An ad-interim temporary injunction was issued in favour of non-petitioner No. 1 and against the petitioner on 20-12-1976, which was later confirmed by the Additional District Judge under his order dated 4-3-1971.

        In the meanwhile, in view of the matters relating to the title to and possession of the motor-truck; being under dispute and the interim injunction having been issued by tile civil Court, the Chief-Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior, under his order dated 21-1-1977 refused to deLi"Ver the possession of the truck to anyone among the claimants and directed that the truck should remain in custody of the police.

        Petitioner Gyanchand filed an appeal in the High Court against the order dated 4-3-1977 passed by the Additional District Judge. Gwalior, confirming the temporary injunction, issued against him. Under the order dated 26-8-1977 in Misc appeal No. 29 of 1971, the appeal was dismissed, but at the same time, observations were made to the effect that some interim arrangement regarding the custody and utilisation of the motor-truck were desirable, so that it did not remain idle for indefinite period, resulting into its damage on account of non-user, and uncalled for financial loss. It is subsequent to this that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, under his impugned order dated 1-9-1977 directed that the interim custody of the motor-truck be given to non-petitioner No. 1 Ashok Kumar on his furnishing security in the sun of Rs 70,000/- to the satisfaction of the Town Inspector, P. S. Kotwali. This is the order which has been challenged by petitioner Gyanchand in the present revision.

        Held : I have carefully considered the arguments advanced in the matter by the learned counsel for the contending parties. Having done so, I find no force, whatever, in the revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner, initially argued that the interim custody of the truck ought to have been handed over to the petitioner in view of the position that the truck was registered in his name. However, there is no invariable rule that the criminal Court must, necessarily, deLi"Ver the interim custody of the seized motor-vehicle to the person its whose name it is registered with the Transport Authority though in majority of cases relating to such disputes it is considered safer to deLi"Ver to interim custody to the person having the registration in his favour. In the instant case, it is obvious that it was not desirable for the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to deLi"Ver the interim custody of the truck to the petitioner, contrary to the temporary injunction issued in regard to the matter by the Civil Court, which appears to have held that there was a prima-facie case in favour of non· petitioner Ashok Kumar on the basis of the alleged higher purchase transaction.

        It was, then contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Chief Judicial Magistrate should have referred the matter of interim custody of the truck to the Civil Court. However, I failed to see the necessity or propriety of such reference; and (without entering into the question of tenability of such reference) in view of the temporary injunction already granted by the Civil Court in favour of non-petitioner No. 1 and confirmed by the High Court. As a matter of fact, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has referred to the order dated 26-8-1977 passed by the High Court in Misc. appeal No. 29 of 1917 in his impugned order and for all practical purpose has followed the observations in directing the interim custody to be made over to non-petitioner No. 1, subject to his furnishing or the security and fulfilment of some other conditions. In cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination, that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has exercised the jurisdiction vested in him in regard to the matter in any improper or irregular manner, was to call for any interference in revision. Revision dismissed.