IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2008 / 1ST MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 3777 of 2007() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01/12/2007 IN & CMP.5190/07 IN CMP.5508/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KATTAPPANA .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER ----------------------------------------- RUBY ABRAHAM, VEZHAMBATHOTTAM HOUSE, KUNTHALAMPARA, KATTAPPANA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. ING VYSYA BANK LTD., RETAIL BANKING DIVISON, SHEMA BUILDING, RAVIPURAM, REP. BY POWER HOLDER VENUGOPALAN, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ SRI.P.T.JOSE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.3777 of 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of January, 2008 ORDER The petitioner, who claims to be the transferee of a public carriage Bus from the registered owner, challenges the condition imposed by the learned Magistrate while granting interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner as against the opposition made by the financier, who had advanced loan to the registered owner. 2. According to the petitioner, a sum of Rs.12,632/- was directed to be deposited within one month, being the installments due from 23.3.07 till 23.12.07. The petitioner would contend that the above liability fixed in the impugned order is demonstrably wrong, since the petitioner had not committed any default in the payment up to 16.8.07, even going by the statement of account of the financier. 3. The question as to what exactly is the amount due and whether the installment amounts are in default from 23.3.07 onwards or only from 16.8.07 onwards is a matter which will to be considered by the appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings. Suffice it to say that, the petitioner who has no privity of contract with the financier was only favoured with an order for interim custody subject to certain conditions which I do not find to be onerous. Subject to the right of the petitioner to work out his actual liability in appropriate proceedings, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj