ORDER
1. This petition is to produce the vehicle seized by the Investigating Officer into court. The petition has arisen in this way.
2. The petitioner is the Regional Manager of a carrier known as M/S.Savani Carrying Private Limited. On 8.10.97, the petitioner engaged lorry TDT 6360 belonging to one Ganesan to carry 640 cartons of cosmetics manufactured by Ponds India Limited from Pondicherry to Madhavaram. On the way, 43 cartons of cosmetics were stolen, regarding which Bakthavatsalam, the driver of the lorry gave a complaint to the Acharapakkam Police, who registered a case in Crime No.623 of 1997 under section 379, IPC. Later, it came to light that the owner of the lorry and the
driver have committed theft of part of the consignment. Therefore, the petitioner preferred a complaint in Crime No. 1126 of 1997 before Madhavaram Police. The inspector of police, Madhavaram seized the lorry, but he had failed to produce the same into court. The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvotiyur directed the first respondent to produce the lorry along with Form-95. Meanwhile, one Saraswathi sought for interim custody of the lorry by filing CMP.No.3841 of 1997 on the file of the Thiruvottiyur Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner filed CRMP.No.4483 of 1997 seeking interim custody of the lorry.
3. According to the petitioner, the owner of the lorry Ganesan admitted
the theft to the petitioner and promised to compensate the petitioner by
paying adequate money towards the value of the stolen consignment and he
entrusted the lorry with the petitioner creating a lien over the same for the
due payment. But the respondent has seized the lorry, he had not produced
the same into court. When notices were issued to the respondent in CRMP
filed by Saraswathi and the petitioner for interim custody of the lorry, the
respondent was reluctant to issue notices, summons and finally informed that
he had handed over the lorry to Ganesan and the-lorry had met with an
accident and is undergoing repairs in some work shop. The first respondent is
evading production of the lorry into court. Now, the petitioner seeks the lorry
to be produced into court.
4. Heard both sides.
5. Section 451 of Cr.P.C. recites as under:
Order for custody and disposal of properly pending trial in certain cases:
When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, “Property” includes-
(a) Property of any kind of document which is produced before the court or which is in its custody.
(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been commit-ted or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.”
6. In the instant case, the consignment was being carried in the lorry and a portion of the consignment had been stolen. In a way, it can be said that the lorry was also instrumental in commission of the offence. Admittedly, the respondent has seized the lorry. In all earnest, the respondent is bound to produce the lorry before the court. It appears, the respondent is very evasive
in that, he shuns to appear before the court. Such conduct of the respondent cannot be appreciated. Having seized a property, it is incumbent upon the respondent to produce the same into court and seek further direction from court. The respondent by his own accord, cannot entrust the custody to a person of his choice. Petitions regarding interim custody are pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiravottiyur. therefore, the first respondent is directed to produce the lorry before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur within ten days from the date of receipt of this order.