IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4612 of 2008() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.456/2008 OF ADIMALY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- PRAMOD, S/O.LEKSHMANAN THAKADIYIL HOUSE, KALIYAR KARA, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU MR.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REP. THE S.I. OF POLICE, ADIMALI. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2009, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 4615 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 4612 OF 2008 & CRL.M.C.No. 4615 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009 O R D E R These petitions are preferred against common orders of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly as C.M.P.2644/2008 and 2668/2008 respectively. C.M.P. 2668/08 is a petition filed by the defacto complainant in Crime No. 456/08 of the Adimaly Police Station praying for interim custody of the lorry bearing registration No. KL-06/C-666 seized by the police in the above case. It is the case of the said defacto complainant that he had purchased the said lorry from one Smt. Nisha Subin and subsequently he leased out the above vehicle to the accused on a monthly rent of Rs. 40,000/-. But the accused defaulted payment and attempted to transfer the vehicle. Thereafter the defacto complainant moved an application for investigation. 2. C.M.P. 2644/2008 is a petition filed by the accused in Crime No. 456/2008 praying for interim custody of the lorry. His contention is that he has purchased the vehicle from the defacto Crl.M.C. 4612/2008 & Crl.M.C. 4615/2008 -2- complainant for a valuable consideration of Rs. 6.25 lakhs and obtained necessary records and thereafter had effected the change of registration. At the time of entering into the purchase he had given blank signed papers which had been utilised by the defacto complainant to create a forged agreement of lease and utilising the same had filed this case. 3. The trial court elaborately considered the matter and it has come out from the investigation that the accused in the case had forged the documents in order to get the registration transferred in the name and that the investigating agency is taking appropriate steps for the purpose of cancellation of the registration. The court below also found that the original owner namely Nisha Subin had filed an affidavit before the court to the effect that she had sold the vehicle only to the defacto complainant and she has not given any documents to transfer the registration of the vehicle to anybody other than the defacto complainant. So without the issuance of a document executed by Nisha Subin it may not be possible to effect a transfer of the registration with respect to the lorry. The said person had come Crl.M.C. 4612/2008 & Crl.M.C. 4615/2008 -3- before the court and filed an affidavit to the effect that she had sold the vehicle only to the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant has got a specific case that the accused in the case has created a false document. Prima facie on investigation the investigating agency had also found out regarding some fraud play. I make it very clear that these are all the prima facie conclusions arrived on it and it need not be taken as a finding of the court with respect to the same. Without the junction of the Nisha Subin, there cannot be a valid transfer and when the defacto complainant had totally denied the sale in favour of the accused in the case it is not proper to hold in favour of the accused. The materials available would only establish regarding the transfer of the vehicle by Nisha Subin in favour of the defacto complainant and not further. The possession of the vehicle by the accused is explained by stating that he is inducted into possession by virtue of an agreement of lease at a rate of Rs. 40,000/- per mensum. 4. I find the court below had properly considered the matter in the correct perspective. Prima facie the materials Crl.M.C. 4612/2008 & Crl.M.C. 4615/2008 -4- available point out that the defacto complainant is the person entitled to interim custody of the vehicle. I do not propose to interfere with the decision of the court below which is correct. Therefore both the Crl.M.Cs are dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm