IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 3673 of 2006()
1. N.A.JOSE, NADUVALIPARAMBIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. P.M.AFSAL, PUTHENPARAMBIL,
3. REOLANT HIRE PURCHASE COMPANY LIMITED,
4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :02/01/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.Nos.3673 and 3898 of 2006
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2007
ORDER
The common petitioner in this Crl.M.Cs assails the order passed
by the learned Magistrate making the release of a vehicle-lorry, in
favour of the 2nd respondent-the registered owner of the vehicle.
2. That the 2nd respondent is the registered owner of the
vehicle is not disputed. There is a dispute as to whether there is an
agreement executed by the 2nd respondent and the petitioner
regarding sale of the vehicle and whether the petitioner is entitled for
possession of the vehicle. To resolve that controversy, no acceptable
documents were produced before the learned Magistrate. It was in
these circumstances that the learned Magistrate passed the impugned
order under which the claim of the registered owner was accepted
and the claim of the petitioner-alleged owner under an agreement was
turned down.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is really the legal owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was
in his possession when the vehicle met with the accident. The learned
counsel for the respondent on the contrary contends that the alleged
agreement is not genuine and no such agreement was entered into at
all. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not in
Crl.M.C.Nos.3673 and 3898 of 2006 2
a position to produce the original agreement on account of reasons
beyond his control. He prays that the petitioner may be granted an
opportunity to raise and substantiate his contention that he was
having possession of the vehicle as its true owner at the time of
seizure of the vehicle under an agreement, the original of which is
produced before this Court as Annexure-A2 in Crl.M.C.3673 of 2006.
4. The vehicle has now been released to the registered
owner, ie. the 2nd respondent. He is keeping possession of the same
after complying with the conditions imposed in the order dated
20.10.2006.
5. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am satisfied
that though the failure/omission of the petitioner to produce the
original of the agreement before the learned Magistrate is
contumacious, a further opportunity can be granted to the petitioner
to substantiate his contentions before the learned Magistrate and
claim release of the lorry in his favour. The learned Magistrate shall
give the parties an opportunity to make further pleadings, if any
necessary and also to substantiate their respective contentions.
Thereafter, the learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate fresh orders
under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The impugned orders can be set aside.
But the direction for release of the vehicle to the registered owner-the
2nd respondent, shall be reckoned as interim direction which shall
Crl.M.C.Nos.3673 and 3898 of 2006 3
hold the field until fresh orders are passed by the learned Magistrate
on merits as indicated above.
6. These Crl.M.Cs are, in these circumstances, allowed in
part to the extent indicated above. Parties shall appear before the
learned Magistrate on 15.01.2007 to continue the proceedings. The
original agreement produced as Annexure-A1 in Crl.M.C.3673 of 2006
shall be returned to the petitioner’s counsel forthwith by the Registry.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-