1985 Supreme(MP) 101

N. K. Singh, J.
Darshan Singh v. Maharaj Singh
Cr. R. No. 82 of 1984 (G); Decided on 6-2-1985.

Headnote:(1) Criminal P. C. 1973-S. 451-bus seized in criminal cased`registered owner is entitled to have custody on supratnama.

       (2) Criminal P. C. 1973-S. 451- bus seized by police-case pending in court -police cannot allow removal of bus without express permission of court.

       On 7-12-1983, petitioner Darshansingh presented a Criminal com plaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambah, district Morena, in respect of the alleged offence u/s 379, I.P.C. against the respondents, wherein, it was alleged, inter alia, that he had purchased the passenger bus bearing the registration No. USA 7908 from one Rajbahadur Singh. That the respondent No.1 was the conductor, respondent No.2 was driver and respondent No.3 was cleaner in this passenger bus, which used to ply on a particular route, and that they had stolen away the same. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter be described as the Code), and sent for a report from the police in course of the enquiry, prior to the registration of the complaint. Along-with the complaint, the petitioner bad also filed an application purporting to be u/s 94 of the Code, in pursuance of which the passenger bus was seized. In the meanwhile, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena, withdrew the case from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambah, and took it on his own file for disposal. Under the impugned Order dated 20-2·1984, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the interim custody of the passenger bus to be deLi"Vered to petitioner Darshansingh on his furnishing Supurdnama and security in the sum of Rs.50,000/-. This order was challenged in revision before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, who set aside the same and, instead, directed that the interim custody of the passenger bus shall be made to respondent No.1 Maharajsingh on the latters furnishing security in the sum of Rs.1, 20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and twenty thousand). This is the order, presently under challenge.

       Held: Upon a careful perusal of the records, including the copies of the documents filed therein. I am of the opinion that, under the circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 18-5-1984 made by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge. Morena, was in order and did not call for any interference by this Court. The main consideration governing this is that the registration of the passenger bus No.1 USA 7908 stands in the name of respondent No 1 Maharajsingh and there is the endorsement dated 10-6-1983 of the R. T. O., Jhansi. thereon to the effect that the passenger bus was transferred by the original owner Rajbahadursingh to Maharajsingh on 9-6-1983 on the other hand. I find no such endorsement is favour of petitioner Darshansingh though along-with the present petition, he has filed the photostet copy of an application purporting to have been made by the original owner Rajbahadursingh to the R. T. O. for the transfer of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner. as also of a receipt purporting to acknowledge the receipt of Rs. 80,000/- in part payment of the alleged agreed consideration of Rs.1,20,000/-. In case, a transaction of the nature has taken place which also appeared bona .fide· to him there would appear no reason as to why the R. T. O. would not have recognised the same.

       It is not necessary at this stage to go into further details of the disputed matter. There is a host of authorities of this Court, indicating the general trend of the view, that other things being equal, in course of a dispute of the present nature, the interim custody of the vehicle having registration should be handed over to the person in whose name the reSf6tmtion stands. To cite a few of them,-the authorities on the point are Mohammad lsmail v. Fahomoda Nahid and others (1966 JLJ 461), Parmanand v. Badilal [1979(1) MPWN Short Note 165] and Jeetsingh v. Sheikh Jamil [1919 (ii) MPWN Short Note 60].

       What is disgusting to note is that while the disputed passenger bus bearing registration No. USA 7908 was in the custody of the police, at P. S. Porsa, in persuance of the interim orders made by this Court the said bus appears to have been taken away unauthoriscdly by petitioner Darshansingh and that too from that police Station. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 filed an application to that effect, before this Court, on 15-10-1984. A copy of this application was given to the learned counsel for the petitioner for reply, but the learned counsel Sarvashri Sachindra Dwivedi and L.S. Chauhan pleaded no instructions on 13- 11-1984 and have, thereafter, not put in appearance till the date of final disposal, i. e., 22-11-1984. This appears to be a matter which needs to be taken serious notice of and calls for detailed enquiry in respect of the whereabouts of the bus by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena. It is difficult to figure out, as to how S.O.P. S. Porsa allowed the seized bus to be removed from his custody without the express permission of the Court.

       The result is, that the present petition made by Darshansingh is, hereby, dismissed and the impugned order dated 18-5-1984 made by the first Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, in regard to the deLi"Very of the, bus on supurdnama to respondent No.l. is confirmed.

       Before parting with the case, it is directed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena, shall make a full -fledged enquiry in respect of the alleged removal of the bus from the police custody by petitioner Darshansingh. In this connection, the attention of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena, may usefully be invited to the following observations of the Supreme Court made in the case of Inter Continental Agencies Pvt. Ltd v. Amin Chand Khanna and another (AIR 1980 SC 951) :-

       "In the present case the property undoubtedly, was custodia legis. The Court had directed Shri Amin Chand Khanna, Official Receiver and later, Shri Anand Menon his successor, to take charge of the buses. When the rightful claimant applied to the Court for possession of the buses the Court could not simply shrug its shoulders and direct him to go to a Civil Court, because both the Official Receivers disclaimed that they were in possession of the buses. In such a situation it was the duty of the Court to probe into the matter, make a full enquiry, and trace the whereabouts of the buses. If the buses could not be so traced or if the buses could not be deLi"Vered to the owner for any reason the Court should direct the culpable party to pay the value of the vehicles to the appellant. It is elementary that no one shall be prejudiced for the act of the Court actus curiae neminem gravabit (the act of Court harms no one). The orders of the subordinate Courts are, therefore set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, who is directed to dispose of the same in accordance with the law after making full enquiry as suggested by us.

       Further, in exercise of powers vested in this Court u/s 482 of the Code, it is further directed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena shall communicate the result of the enquiry to this Court within is period of three months from today. 1966 JLJ 461, 1979 (i) MPWN 165, 1979 (ii) MPWN 60 and AIR 1980 SC 951 relied on. Revision dismissed.