U KARIYAPPA Vs. P SREEKANTAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 1-2-80 passed by Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Cr.R.P. No. 1/80, whereby the set aside the the order dated 17-1-80 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandya, in C.C. No. 765/1979 on the file of this Court entrusting the custody of the vehicle MYN 3839 to the registered owner of the vehicle and instead directed to entrust the custody thereof to the respondent.

(2.) On the complaint dated 7-10-1979 lodged by the Motor Vehicles Inspector R. V. Venkatesh of R.T.O's Office, Mandya, that at about 8-45 p.m. on that day the bus MYN 3839 in question detained by him for non-payment of tax and left in the custody of watchman Gurumallaiah of R.T.O's Office had been stolen away by some unknown persons by assaulting the watchman, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Mandya, registered a case in Crime No. 154/79 for the offences under Sections 379 and 353 I.P.C. and issued F.I.R. to the Court. He, thereafter, took up investigation of the case. On 8-10-79, during investigation of the case, he seized the bus from the premises of the Pressing Components (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mysore, and detained in the Police custody, and sent a report of the seizure of the bus to the court. Both the petitioner, U. Kariyappa said to be the proprietor of Arakere Union Motor Service and the respondent P. Srikantaiah filed applications before the interim Magistrate, Mandya, claiming the interim custody of the vehicle, as provided under Section 451 Cr.P.C. While the former asked for the interim custody of the vehicle on the ground that he was the registered owner thereof and when the same was detained by the Motor Vehicles Inspector on 6-10-79 for non-payment of the tax, it was stolen away, the latter asked to entrust the same to his custody on the ground that he had purchased the same from the former under an agreement of sale D/- 30-7-79 and after taking delivery of the vehicle he had got it repaired and made road-worthy spending huge amount of Rs. 50,000/- and when he had left the bus in the premises of the Pressing Components (India) Private Ltd., near Mysore, in his absence the Police had seized the bus from the said premises with the connivance of the previous owner. He also produced a photostat copy of agreement of sale dated 30-7-79 written on a stamp paper, purporting to be executed and signed by the previous owner. Both showed their willingness to furnish adequate surety and abide by any conditions imposed by the court, whenever required. They also filed objection opposing each others application.

(3.) The petitioner herein U. Kariyappa, who was admittedly the registered owner of the vehicle denied any knowledge about the agreement of sale of the vehicle. Alternatively, he also contended that the agreement did not confer any ownership of the vehicle to the purchaser P. Srikantaiah.