1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD) No.15 of 2011 Gubendiran ... Revision Petitioner/Accused Vs. 1.State Represented By, The Sub Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Dindigul District. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Chinnakaruppan ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant 2nd Respondent impleaded as per the order of Hon'ble Court made in M.P.(MD) No.1/11 in Crl.R.C. (MD) No.15/2011 vide its Order dated 08.06.2011 by MSNJ. Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records pertaining to the order of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Natham passed in Crl.M.P.No.2220 of 2010 in Crime No.586 of 2010 Dated 07.12.2010 and set aside the same. For petitioner : Mr.D.Selvaraj For 1st Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For 2nd Respondent : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu ORDER The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.571 of 2010 on the file of Natham Police Station, Dindigul and the said complaint was lodged on 20.09.2010 for the alleged commission of the offences under Section 379(NP) and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. In the said complaint, the second respondent herein is arrayed as 3rd accused on the allegation that the lorry bearing registration No.TN 57 Q 7249 has been stolen away by the accused. The second respondent herein also lodged a complaint and based on that Crime No.586 of 2010 has been registered on the file of Natham Police Station on 02.10.2010 alleging that the petitioner and his wife practising deception and breach of trust, through the source provided by the second respondent purchased a lorry bearing registration No.TN. 41 R 3562 in his name and he is not producing the accounts. 2. Pending investigation in Crime No.586 of 2010, the revision petitioner herein has filed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.2220 of 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for the return of the lorry bearing registration No. TN 41 R 3562 seized by the respondent police by way of interim custody. The second respondent herein also filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.2294 of 2010 under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., seeking interim custody of the same vehicle. 3. The Court of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Natham vide common order dated 07.12.2010, has dismissed both the petitions stating that whether the above said lorry belongs to the revision petitioner or the second respondent can be adjudicated only on considering the oral and documentary evidences. Challenging the dismissal of the petition in Crl.M.P.No.2220 of 2010, the revision petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision Case. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the interim custody of the lorry bearing registration No. TN 57 Q 7249 has already been entrusted to him by way of interim custody and since he is admittedly the registered owner in the respect of the lorry bearing registration No. TN 41 R 3562, the said lorry should have been handed over to him as interim custody and the reasons assigned by the lower Court on the face of it is unsustainable. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent strongly opposed the claim made by the revision petitioner by contending that the lorry bearing registration No. TN 41 R 3562 was jointly purchased by the revision petitioner as well as by the second respondent and in this regard an agreement dated 08.03.2008 came to be executed, wherein the revision petitioner has clearly stated that the vehicle was jointly purchased for a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- and therefore, the revision petitioner is not entitled to interim custody. 6. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent that the second respondent also filed O.S.No.94 of 2010 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Natham particularly against the revision petitioner herein for declaration to declare that the above said vehicle was jointly purchased and the said suit is pending adjudication. It is also the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent that the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the issues involve appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and therefore, has rightly rejected the claim of the revision petitioner. 7. On the said submissions, this Court heard the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) also. 8. The fact remains that the revision petitioner is the registered owner of the above said vehicle and it was seized on 02.10.2010 in Crime No.586 of 2010 and it is parked in the open space subject to the vagaries of weather. The Honourable Supreme Court of India in a catena of decisions has held that the vehicle seized in connection with the Crime shall be returned to the registered owner as the parking of the said vehicle in open place will deteriorate its material value and its utility. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 9. This Court taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case is of the view that the vehicle bearing registration No. TN 41 R 3562, Chassis No. DWE 544513, Engine No. DWE 406440 shall be returned to the revision petitioner by way of interim custody. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order of the Court of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Natham dated 07.12.2010, made in Crl.M.P.No.2220 of 2010 is set aside and the lorry bearing registration No. TN 41 R 3562, Chassis No. DWE 544513, Engine No. DWE 406440 shall be returned to the revision petitioner by way of interim custody subject to the following conditions: (a) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to the satisfaction of the Court of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Natham. (b) On compliance of the above said condition and the Court on being satisfied with the ownership of the vehicle shall return the said vehicle to the revision petitioner by way of interim custody. (c) The petitioner by way of taking interim custody shall not alienate or encumber the same. (d) The vehicle shall be produced before the first respondent/Court as and when required and (e) The revision petitioner shall submit the accounts of income and expenditure earned out of running the said vehicle to the said Court in O.S.No.94 of 2010 on the first working day of every English Calender Month. The findings made herein are only for the purpose of disposing this Criminal Revision Case and this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the case to be projected by the revision petitioner as well as by the second respondent. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Accounts) /TRUE COPY/ Assistant Registrar To: 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Natham. 2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station,Dindigul District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. Crl.R.C.(MD) No.15 of 2011 16.06.2011 sj PA/28.06.2011/3P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/